|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 November 25, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Non-Fiction:
Cases That Haunt Us, The (Douglas and Olshaker, 2000) :
Archive through November 25, 2000
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 08:33 pm |        | | I don't think the motivations discussed here have to be mutually exclusive. If I understand what the profilers have written about SKs they have inside them hate, control-hunger, and lust all wadded up into one nasty little snarled ball. |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 10:19 pm | | Wow
Quite the vibrant discussion, some interesting points being raised here.
Jeff D.
Some excellent observations Jeff, you are thinking outside the box.
Joseph.
Your thinking with your eyes open, good man, trying to come up with alternatives that fit the pattern is commendable.
Jim L.
I wonder if Paul Begg recognizes some of the points you are raising, you appear to echo several concerns that I had which started a long series of exchanges with Paul about a year ago.
Jack (L.A.)
Your quotation from The Times, is very appropriate giving the hint that this was a killer with purpose, that the organ was the focus of the attack was a real possibility.
Nice to see Martin settling in and being quite at home, we are benefitting from your contribution my good man :-)
Graham
You think you had Cohen & Kosminski confused?
I raised a similar observation with Paul last year about the uncanny similarities, which, if the police had a file on Cohen might tend to suggest that the memories of these retired officers had simply got some details confused between the two. But, to date, we know of no police interest in Cohen, beyond the minor brush with the law over the brothel incident, whether he was involved or not.
And from reading up on the traits that the police were looking for in a suspect, it is a little amazing that they should arrest such a person as Cohen and never consider him for a potential suspect in the Whitechapel murders. It is all the more strange due to the support that Martin gets for his suspect (type) from Douglas and the acceptance by Paul, even though Paul does not fully agree, at least his suspect (Kosminski) is also of a similar make-up. The police suspected one but not the other, and yet they are like book-ends.
As far as the psychological profilers and FBI profilers are concerned, and all those crystal ball gazers, palm readers and the like. I side with Melvin Harris........”profiling is more of an art than a science”.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Joseph
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 12:02 am | | Hello Jon,
Thank you for your kind words of encouragement.
I regret I don't have enough time, right now, to substantiate my theory. At the end of this semester, in three weeks time, I will be free to continue my research into the possible psychological motivation of the Whitechapel murderer, and amend my theory as I gain information.
Thanks again for your support Jon
Best regards
Joseph |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 04:55 am | | Hi All
I thought there was something pretty damning to suggest the killer probably wasn't a Polish Jew (or at least Anderson's one), and having a quick flick through one or two books brought to mind exactly what that was: Sir Henry Smith's dismissal of Anderson's 'reckless accusation' and general disbelief that A had ever put forward this suspect. Anything Anderson knew, either at the time or in later years, Smith would almost certainly have known too. When one considers the animosity between the pair, Smith's statements are hardly to be wondered at, but I really don't think he would have been so vehement if he'd believed for one second that Anderson was in a position to come forward and actually name the suspect. Anderson never did, of course, and I'm pretty sure he would have done so if only to spite Smith. By 1910, when both men's autobiogs appeared, there wasn't an awful lot to be gained by keeping quiet. I have always been impressed by the fact that Smith, although given to spouting the occasional bit of nonsense (such as his claim to have been so close on Jack's heels one night that he saw bloody water disappearing down a plug hole), made it clear that no one, high or lower ranking, City or Metropolitan force, had any more idea who the killer was than we do.
So, I've been able to fight off Cohen (in my own mind) and wrestle him out of the frame again. I don't think any suspect will ever come close to being universally accepted as Jack unless someone can unearth a really startling piece of evidence which clearly ties him to the crimes (hopefully it won't be another diary, though!). Does anything of the kind exist? Probably. I wonder what Jack did with the organs he took with him? Did he really 'prasarve' them, perhaps as relics over which to gloat? Did a relative perhaps discover one or more of these organs after his death and keep them?
Still no thoughts on the Miller's Court window mystery? Further delvings on these boards and through my books on the subject have still not turned up anything regarding the matter of how Kelly and Barnett came and went prior to the window being broken, or why Barnett appears to have lied to the police.
Best regs to all,
Graham |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 05:14 am | | Jim L. I wonder if Paul Begg recognizes some of the points you are raising, you appear to echo several concerns that I had which started a long series of exchanges with Paul about a year ago.
Hi Jon and Jim L. I do indeed recognise the points being raised and, sadly, my response remains the same: either the incident happened or it didn’t.
If it didn’t, then one must demonstrate in a real sense that Anderson is a liar. Where other revelations in his book can be tested, they appear to be true – i.e., he did author the Parnell letters, an admission that caused a tremendous outcry at the time, and the organiser of the Jubilee Plot was a British informer. I therefore have no reason to suppose that Anderson’s Ripper revelations are any less true. So, pending good evidence to the contrary, I have to accept that there was a suspect, was a witness and was an identification. I am also of the opinion that Anderson and Swanson entertained their beliefs about the suspect at quite an early stage (in other words at the time of the identification – 1891 in my opinion) and that it wasn’t a conclusion born of senile wishful thinking.
Now, I have no problem whatever with any argument that the suspect wasn’t the Ripper. Indeed, I made some such suggestion apropos Stride ages ago. But I haven’t seen anything I consider persuasive to suggest that the basic story Anderson tells is a lie. And if it isn’t a lie, then it happened. If it happened, then Anderson had reasons on which his conclusion was based. We may speculate what those reasons were – pure fancy, anti-Semitism, misunderstanding, sheer relief to have nailed anyone, or because the evidence was overwhelmingly convincing – but until we know what they were, we can’t dismiss them.
Regarding Jim Leen’s comment about the worth of Schwartz’s testimony, one can indeed dismiss it as of no importance, though that is not the impression received from the official files, and his absence from the inquest is baffling, though two other important witnesses were absent too. There is no mention anywhere of evidence having been given in camera, but Anderson did make a passing remark, possibly a slip of the pen, to ‘the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride…’, so we can’t be sure.
As for Jews not reporting crimes to the police, notwithstanding reports of their general helpfulness during the house-to-house inquiries and at other times, I do indeed question whether an immigrant would have pointed the finger of guilt at a fellow. I think the wrath this would have brought upon the immigrant community as a whole would have been awful to contemplate. But the Jewish/immigrant community at that time was a wonderfully colourful, tight-knit (often street-based) and complicated community. Some would have talked to the police, others, who saw the police in their own country as the tools and butchers of their oppressors, certainly wouldn't have. I wouldn't blame them in the least. And for almost all the immigrants, coming from small country towns and villages in their homelands, London and its people must have looked like Mars. I think most would have kept their heads down and their mouths shut. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 05:32 am | | Hi Graham
The point about Major Smith is excellent, but what does it mean? That there wasn't a Polish Jew suspect at all? That Anderson was a bare-faced liar? Or does it simply mean that Smith didn't agree with Anderson's conclusion? And if the latter, would Smith indeed have known as much about the evidence as Anderson?
As I keep saying, the story is a distinct and separate thing from the conclusion. Anderson's conclusion could be so far up the creek without a paddle that such a thing as a paddle has been forgotten about. But that doesn't mean that his story is untrue. But why should Anderson (and Swanson) have reached the conclusion they did? |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 06:47 am | | Hi, Paul
I don't think for a minute that Anderson was a bare faced liar. I rather think his conclusion was reached in a similar way that of Macnaghten, which is to say via less than conclusive evidence, and maybe nothing more than speculation. I just feel that Smith would never have stuck his neck out so far as to dismiss the reference to a Polish Jew as a 'reckless accusation' if there was any real truth at the heart of it, or any possibility that he could end up with egg on his face by expressing this belief. I would say Smith's words indicate that he knew full well to whom Anderson was referring, and based on his own extensive knowledge considered it preposterous.
I think Anderson and Swanson had, as do most who take any interest in the subject, a pet suspect - and the Polish Jew was he. Smith actually took to the streets at the time of the murders, and thus would have heard what was being said, theories being put forward direct from the various sources, whereas, so far as I'm aware, Anderson stayed safely tucked away. Also, I believe that if Abberline had known of any serious suspect then he'd have made the fact known. That he didn't convinces me (almost) that no one ever knew who Jack was, or got close to finding out. Personally, I don't think we're any nearer to actually unmasking Jack now than the police were 112 years ago.
Best regs,
Graham |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 09:11 am | | Hi Jim,
A couple of niggles. I don't think 'hearsay' is a category that historians should admit. We're not law courts, and once all the eye-witnesses to anything are dead, all evidence is hearsay. Corroborative evidence for the existence of Anderson's poor Polish Jew was available before the publication of the Swanson marginalia. Macnaghten's notes on Kosminsky quite obviously referred to him - at least, it was obvious to me and at the same time and independently to Paul Begg, and to Martin Howells (who misguidedly abandoned his own perception and published an acceptance of Don Rumbelow's Pizer theory). Neither Paul, Martin nor I can understand how such an obvious correspondence of suspects escaped previous researchers. I don't know if it's a misprint that you refer to Anderson's 'Jews' in the plural, but if so, I would add that Swanson's confirmation of points about the witness that were included in Anderson's Blackwood's version but dropped from the volume version is very strong (I would say conclusive) evidence that there really was such a witness. As for the matter being on file - of course it must have been. Now that Evans and Skinner blessedly exist, I shall be able to get right that annotation on the surviving suspects file which calls it 'Ridiculous cases only' or words to that effect. There is no question that a 'serious cases' suspects file or files existed. And if they have survived and ever come to light, it's my belief that given the odd corkscrew twist whch this case seems to throw up every time one approaches the end of the tunnel, then we shall really get to the final truth. There is nothing sinister about its disappearance: senior officers could always take files home to study, or, like Macnaghtena and Ernie Millen, to 'borrow' interesting documents for their own use. And through carelessness or gloatfulness they might then fail to return them. I hope nobody is misled by Evans & Skinner's publishers who have put 'Lost Files' as one of their book's contents on the dust jacket. The lost files we really want will not, alas, be there.
And finally the good ship Balliol? Funny, that; when I kept a boat in St Katharine's Dock I contemplated renaming it Balliol, so that I coud receive letters to 'The Master of Balliol'. I didn't, in the end, because (a) it's unlucky to change a boat's name, and one should always respect the superstitions of a tightly knit social group like boat bums if one enters it, and (b) my boat had a beautiful Cornsh name, anyway, and Cornwall is far more important to me than Oxford.
With regard to which latter place, however, I should add that though I have often drunk the toast, 'Floreat domus de Balliolo', I have still more often drunk the deliberately ilLatinate toast 'Floreant manes Davenantis', for, as the late Sarah Caudwell remarked on hearing that I had described her stripping at a party, 'He must be a Lincoln man'.
And on to Jon,
With thanks for the friendly welcome.
A question - What are these traits you know the police were looking for in a suspect, and what is your source for them?
An agreement with you and Melvin: yes, of course 'offender profiling' is an art and not a science. So is the sort of assessment of the date of a person's schooling from their handwriting which Melvin practices; so is the comparative handwriting element in serious document examination (as opposed to silly fortune telling 'graphology'). Apart from David Canter, who is trying to database the elements of unconsciously perceived observation that go into a police officer's 'hunch', I can't think of anybody in the business who would seriously challenge the claim. John Douglas and Roy Hazelwood are particularly honourable in this respect, because both invariably acknowledge the limitations of their 'art', and admit that they have made whopping mistakes from time to time. Nevertheless, their art rests (like Melvin's art of assessing the age of handwriting) on a large amount of practical experience, both in the field as active FBI agents who couldn't mess about with approaches that wouldn't bring the serous results of guaranteed evidence to stand up in court, and, in Douglas's case especially, as interviewers who have examined more serial rapists and murderers than anybody else ever, and have been careful to offset their statements against demonstrable facts before accepting them as true. Now, for Melvin to try and dismiss this as any sort of crystal-gazing is, I regret to say, self-interested and misleading poppycock. He HAS to get them out of the way (as he HAS to get rid of the serious historical Polish Jew theory) if he is to have any hope of getting anyone to listen to his Donston stuff. The reason serious and skilled profilers are so dangerous to him is that his own selection of Donston as the Ripper rests, by his own account, on a 'profile' of the Ripper he drew up. And it is so hopelessly amateur, so completely unlike the real profiles carried out by Douglas and Hazelwood in America, and Canter independently in England, that it almost suggests a 'force-fit' creation to make a profile validating Donston rather than letting the facts determine the profile and then looking to see if any suspect fitted the profile. No one in their right mind would prefer John Douglas's opinion to Melvin's on the visible physical evidence for the probable forgery of a document or artefact. That is Melvin's skill, and not John's. But no one in their right mind can prefer Melvin's 'profiling' to that of the professionals, and no historian can admire his attempt to denigrate their work with a lofty aside, given the transparent self-interest that motivates him.
And on to Graham.
I have to disagree with my esteemed colleague Mr Begg who thinks your use of Smith excellent. I think Smith completely unreliable, and would point to the inscription in the Scotland Yard library copy of his memoirs than Don Rumbelow found (A-Z latest edn p.418) and contrast it with the prickly puritanism of Anderson. It is just such careful examination and comparison of sources BEFORE we started to make any effort to decide whether the Ripper might or might not be identifiable, that led Mr Begg and me to respect each other' work so highly in comparison with other Ripper writers.
And what makes you think that Anderson and Smith would each have held the same information? Despite the excellent City/Met cooperation at ground level reported by Dew, all the evidece we have suggests that this did not extend to the top. Smith's question about how many Jews Anderson was accusing of withholding information suggests to me that he wasn't clear about Anderson's charge and how far it really went beyond the original and widely publicized search for 'a' local Jew, or 'the' Leather Apron.
I don't think many people still believe that Major Smith knew 'more than any man living' about the case. But hasten to say you are absolutely right not to overlook him. However much he invented and exaggerated, he knew some things from on the spot activity, and we must always keep him in mind.
Anderson 'safely tucked away' - this is reminiscent of the extremely misleading remark in Evans and Skinner's appendix of characters to the effect that he took no active part in the investigation. He certainly did come out to Frances Coles' murder site in 1891, though I think he was intelligent enough to know that his presence on the spot wasn't especially important. Neither he, nor Macnaghten nor any other of the top brass who went slumming to the Ripper sites could add anything useful to the work of the local CID. He was immensely and as far as we know usefully active in examinng and acting on the evidence sent back to him from the field. Few heads of investigations can ever have given such strong practical support to their men at the cutting edge as Anderson did in sending (as Wynne Baxter rightly complained) doctor after doctor to look at Rose Mylett's body until he got the report he wanted which confirmed the opinion of the constables on the ground.
Oh, and of course I agree that we're no nearer unmasking Jack now than Anderson was 112 years ago. I don't think it's possible to get any closer. (Well, I would say that, wouldn't I?)
And finally, for those who imagine the A-Z triumvirate stand shoulder to shoulder at all times...
Mr Begg - I am APPALLED! How can you utter such an alarming howler as to suggest that Anderson perpetrated the Parnell letters - the forgery for which Piggott was rightly shamed to the point of flight and suicide? Anderson admitted to contributing to the series 'Parnellism and Crime', later numbers of which included Piggott's forgery. Anderson used material about the links between American Fenians and native Irish Home Rulers, mostly derived from Le Caron. It is my guess that as a shrewd Dubliner Anderson knew about Piggott as a shady character who had tried to flog dubious material to both nationalists and unionists. Certainly he kept his head well down during the inquiry of 1888-9, and then, as you say, provoked huge criticism in 1910 when he admitted to having been in any way involved wth the Times series that blew up so badly because of Piggott's crime.
And a happy and blessed Thanksgiving Day to all.
Martin F |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 10:50 am | | Hi, Martin
I think it entirely possible that things to which Anderson was privy were not available to Smith, and vice versa - but only at the time of the killings. As the years passed, surely it is inevitable that facts would emerge which either or both came to hear about. I have always believed it very improbable that a firm suspect against whom some solid evidence existed could fail to become known to those in the upper echelons of both City and Met forces, details and all, and probably to those lower down too. Maybe this isn't the case, but I'd put money on this being true. If Anderson's Polish Jew was seriously believed to be Jack, why wasn't his apprehension widely publicised? Is it really possible that no one would have slipped his name into conversation, thus leading the that name becoming widely known? Why did they not say: 'Rest easy in your beds - we've caught Jack?' The excitement caused by later, non-canonical murders is surely evidence that the police were far from certain Jack was safely locked away or in his grave. That is how I see it, but I may well be wrong. But remember that Macnaghten's chief suspect (and he obviously prefers Druitt to the Polish Jew or Russian doctor for whatever reason) can provably be shown not to have been Jack (well, very nearly).
I also think a little too much emphasis is placed on modern profiles of Jack, based on what it known about him via his crimes. The very thinking of people back in Victorian times was so utterly different to now. A woman who displayed a couple of inches of ankle was considered 'loose', while at the same time no one appeared to think it appalling that child prostitution was rife. And there will always be those who don't conform to any set pattern laid down by psychologists and such. For what it's worth, I'd say Jack was British, reasonably educated and certainly intelligent, had been charged in the past with no more than minor offences and probably none at all, had never been imprisoned or confined in an asylum, and had an obsessive love (or fixation at any rate) for MJK. I don't think at any point he descended into raving mania, was arrested or jailed or otherwise detained, and remained in full control of himself even when ripping his victims. Were I to undertake a full scale assault on the mystery (and I may do one of these days), I'd start off by looking for someone in Mary Jane's past. I feel certain it was such a person who was her killer. The person she apparently spent time with in France would be top of my list until I could prove this man's innocence.
I, like a great many who take an interest in this case, feel sure that the whole mystery centres around Kelly. I don't think Jack wanted to kill her, but once he had, which meant the object of his desire was gone from this world, there was no reason for him to go on killing, and being an educated and (most of the time) fairly rational man realised the danger he would be placing himself in if he carried on doing so. I doubt he committed suicide, went mad or did anything at all other than revert to the way he had lived before the murders began. I am very interested by something Colin Wilson wrote a few years ago in which he stated that many killers experience irrational and uncontrollable rage when under the influence of drink or drugs, usually the former. While it seems unlikely Jack could simply have quit playing his funny little games just like that, it is very likely that had he removed from his life the main cause of his problem - alcohol - he could have brought himself under control once more. But if one is to accept this as a possibility, one then has to ask the question: Would Jack have been able to operate with stealth and cunning if he was inebriated? I tend to fall around and behave stupidly when I've had a few, and generally make an idiot of myself (that it to say, even more of an idiot of myself than I do when sober).
I would go so far as to say that I believe Jack knew Kelly, had most likely known her for some time, was utterly besotted with her, and planned to elope her. She thought him odd, needed some convincing, but finally agreed. She promised to give up her profession, but on the very morning they were due to leave the East End, Jack finds Kelly drunkenly copulating in her room with a customer. The one person (in his mind) capable of saving him from himself has betrayed him. There can be only one outcome for poor Mary Jane.
This, in very brief and general terms, is what I figure happened. Possibly it's a million miles from the reality of events - but I don't think so.
Best regs,
Graham |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 11:41 am | | One of the things that has so delighted me about John Douglas’s book is that he has so convincingly stressed the importance of the big picture over a frame-by-frame analysis. I am as pleased by this, as Martin is pleased by the endorsement of Cohen, because it highlights the importance of the fact that Anderson admitted to writing something relating to Parnell, the big picture, and stressed the unimportance of niggling little issues like it being an article for The Times and not a Piggoty letter. Nevertheless, I hasten to point out that I threw in that deliberate mistake to see who would pick it up. Well done, Martin. Full marks for being observant.
Right. I seem to have got out of that one. Let’s move on.
Hi Graham
If Major Smith knew who Anderson’s suspect was, why didn’t he say so? Why didn’t he say something like: I know exactly who Sir Robert is talking about and I am fully cognizant of the evidence on which Sir Robert’s conclusion is based, but I do not share his belief. The evidence consisted of no more than a threat against the life of his sister with…’ and so on and so on.
In fact Major Smith didn’t deny Anderson’s claim directly at all. What he seems to have objected to was Anderson’s claim the the Jews did not hand one of their own over to Gentile justice, which he interpreted as the Ripper having been ‘sheltered’ by the Jews (perhaps something of an overstatement, but we won’t get into that). So Major Smith wasn’t actually moved into refuting Anderson’s suspect, but to vehemently rejecting Anderson’s allegation about the Jews.
As strange as this may seem to us, it strikes me as very telling about the perceived importance of the Ripper crimes in 1910, which is reinforced by the furore over the admission concerning the ‘Parnellism and Crime’ article in The Times. |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 12:19 pm | | Hi, Paul
The case for Anderson and his Jewish suspect is very well argued, no doubt about it. But I still can't get round the reasons why he would have failed to name the man thought to be the Ripper. When one considered the stick he took at the time of the murders, surely it would have given him great pleasure to have said: 'The suspect was a Mr David Cohen. We found xxxxx evidence against him which proved beyond any reasonable doubt that he and the Whitechapel fiend were one and the same person. As you can see, we weren't quite the fools we were accused of being.' Even after Smith had mocked his claim, still Anderson stayed silent. Did he do so because he knew if he revealed that suspect's identity there would be any number of other officers who could prove him wrong? Then there are the manifold and rather confused offerings of other policemen who discussed the case in their own autobiograhphies and elsewhere, and those who attested that no one ever knew the identity of Jack. This must surely lead to the conclusion that no one had more than suspicions which were uncorroborated by solid evidence, or even any of a persuasively circumstantial nature.
By the time the later murders took place, there was much talk of the killer being Jewish. How likely is it that he could have gained the confidence of those he murdered? Wouldn't it be rather more likely that Jack was someone who appeared to be above suspicion? However much I try to make the Polish Jew fit with what happened and what is known, I find him slipping through the net and escaping serious inclusion as a candidate. But, I hasten to add, that is just how it appears to me. I'm of the opinion the Jack probably altered his appearance to some degree during the Autumn of Terror, by which I mean I don't think went out on each expedition dressed in the same way. Maybe he adopted the disguise of a policemen or a woman, maybe he simply wore ragged clothes and assumed the role of coal man or Hansom cab driver. But almost certainly something of that nature. Whenever I read the assorted witness statements, I always bring to mind Chesterton's Invisible Man. Was the killer right under their noses but seemed so insignificant that they didn't warrant mentioning him?
So much mystery, whichever way we turn!
Best regs,
Graham |
Author: Jim Leen
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 01:01 pm | | Hello Everybody,
Before I respond to some of the excellent observations I thought a brief airing of some historical matters may be beneficial to understand the times that the Whitechapel residents were living through. (O Tempora O Mores, Mr F?)
In 1886 WJ Stead, editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, was imprisoned for purchasing a child for the sum of five quid. The transaction only occurred as Stead wanted to show that this form of white slavery was present in contemporary London. His subsequent series of lurid articles may lead one to conclude that he was convicted of crimes against journalism. Ahem, humour really isn't my forte yet still I persist!
1888, the year of the crimes, was also notable for the dedicated anti-Semitic misinformation program being applied by a foreign intelligence service. A report, originating in Germany, was printed in The Times telling the tale of how, following carnal relations, a Jew murdered a Christian girl because sex with a Gentile was a sin and the only way to atone for this crime was to take her life. Absolute nonsense of course. And a chilling reflection of how misunderstood Judaism was, possibly still is, and how easy it was to assimilate this form of race hatred.
Another document I've seen relates to Jewish immigrants wishing to settle in Britain. Unfortunately I don't have it to hand but I have posted the actual text on another board but I'm afraid I can't remember which one. Basically it was from Chief Rabbi Adler extorting, in very strong terms, his European counterparts make potential emigrants aware of the level of anti-Semitism in London.
So, how do these events relate to this discussion. Well, in the first case it shows the price of a life. If, as mentioned, an American doctor had offered £20 for anatomical specimens he could have been presented with, ghastly thought, his very own walking research station for half the amount. This fact alone should be sufficient to dispel the notion that the killer was operating to a surgical schedule.
The second points are something which I have been aware of though I have not given sufficient attention to. Noting how severe conditions were for ordinary Jews, witness the protective removal of the graffito, it may be considered likely that Anderson's witness did not testify as stated. Not because of the question of giving a fellow Jew up to Gentile justice but because, as Paul Begg stated,"...the wrath this would have brought upon the immigrant community as a whole would have been awful to contemplate."
This scenario would have been far more likely, perhaps even probable. Can you imagine the slaughter that would have ensued if it was known that JTR was a Jew?
However, that does not mean that I now accept Anderson's statement. Although McNaghten does mention Kosminski, he was only included as a possibility along with two other alternative suspects. And, if memory serves, he makes no mention of the event alluded to by Anderson. Does that not imply that no actual record of the event was ever kept? In which case it's difficult to lose a file that never existed! Someone of McNaghten's standing would surely have known of the event, even without recourse to files, at the time of writing the memorandum. It would have also served Cutbush better if McNaghten had written that "Jack the Ripper was definitely a Polish Jew." Think of the work and the ink he would have been spared!
I will post further on the subject but I feel that I have provided sufficient information for continued argument, er discussion! And, to tell the truth, Futurama is about to begin.
Thanking you etc
Jim Leen |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 01:08 pm | | Martin
You refer to the traits?, maybe I picked a wrong word....
One of my sideline interests is to compile a list of those individuals who caught the attention of police, for one reason or another. I loosely refer to it as a list of contemporary suspects.
When you look at the accusations against some of them and the type of people they were, Pizer, Issenschmid, Kosminski, etc, basically poor, jewish, unbalanced?, and then other's like the three medical students and later, Cutbush & Puckridge are not too far behind, it is apparent that a common thread appears to be 'crazy'.
What we have learned of Cohen is that he would be a natural choice for police to keep an eye on.
And if we believe the accuracy of the memoirs of retired police officials then we are left with an impression that the crazy Jewish lunatic or just crazy lunatic was up front and centre in the eyes of not only the police but press & public too.
And yet the East end must have had quite its share of people from this walk of life, which included Cohen. And yet when they arrested him, no thoughts of him being given the chance to help police with their enquiries. Of course we have little in the way of info from his appearance in court, but it certainly appears that David Cohen was not the type of person to raise the interest of police as a suspect in the Whitechapel murders. So, what has changed?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 02:29 pm | | Consider the position: you are a rather well-to-do person in a highly respected position of authority (Anderson). Murders of previously unheard of ferocity are being committed on your patch. The victims are of a class deemed to be so low that various euphemisms have to be coined to describe them and their activities. The whole business must have been a nightmare for the better classes, who preferred to ignore the aject poverty, appalling suffering and sordid degeneracy taking place in the East End every day. Paying prostitutes for sex would have been considered shameful enough, but actually ripping them up too - almost beyond belief for men of Anderson's class. It was natural for such people to apportion the blame to a race they considered grossly inferior to their own. It WOULD have coloured the thinking of men like Anderson, no doubt about it. When descriptions of a 'Jewish looking' suspect began to circulate, this must have been something of a relief to them, confirming their suspicions that the murderer was of the lowest kind imaginable, no doubt sent this way by his indulgence in 'unmentionable vices'. The very fact that someone in such a position of authority could seriously believe indulging in these vices (thought to be simply masturbation) could turn someone into a ferocious killer speaks for itself. But, as has been noted, anti-Semitism was rife at that time. I wonder how many of the witnesses elaborated on what they saw to make potential killers fit the right mould? I wonder if any of them overlooked someone obvious but 'respectable', or at least of their own kind, in preference for Johnny Foreigner?
If you were Sir Robert, who would you rather believe to be this frenzied madman - a low class Jew or a respectable Englishman, or any Englishman for that matter? If I had a reputation to stake (fat chance!) I would stake it on this being the truth of the matter. I think Jack remained undetected for similar reasons that Peter Sutcliffe did - the police weren't looking in the right places or for the right suspect. How much more seriously would the police have taken Sutcliffe as a suspect if they hadn't been convinced he was a Geordie?
Graham |
Author: LeatherApron
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 05:13 pm | | Joseph,
The chatroom is located at the following URL:
http://www.geocities.com/grahf_chess/index.html
Martin,
I forgot to say congratulations on finishing your book!
Jon,
If you liked that one you'll love the following. (btw, I botched the date on the last post. It was September 24th and I erroneously wrote November. I'm a moron.)
All,
Excerpt from The Times, September 27th 1888 regarding inquest into the death of Annie Chapman. "Her rings had been wrenched from her fingers and had not since been found, and the uterus had been taken from the abdomen. The body had not been dissected, but the injuries had been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There were no meaningless cuts. The organ had been taken by one who knew where to find it, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should used his knife so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it or have recognized it when it was found. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been some one accustomed to the post mortem room. The conclusion that the desire was to possess the missing abdominal organ seemed overwhelming. If the object were robbery, the injuries to the viscera were meaningless, for death had previously resulted from the loss of blood at the neck. Moreover, when they found an easily accomplished theft of some paltry brass rings and an internal organ taken, after at least a quarter of an hour's work and by a skilled person, they were driven to the deduction that the abstraction of the missing portion of abdominal viscera was the object, and the theft of the rings was only a thin-veiled blind, an attempt to prevent the real intention being discovered."
Everyone will be able to read the entire article when it's transcribed and posted.
Not much time or I would comment on my thoughts about profilers, etc. Happy Thanksgiving to all who celebrate it! Best wishes to all!
No luck yet. They say I'm a doctor now ha ha.
Regards,
Jack |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 11:59 pm | | Hi, all:
Leather Apron (Jack), I hope you were able to rip into a nise Thanksgiving turkey ha ha
To become (alas!) serious, I think the conversation and interflow of information on this board has been marvellous. I continue to think though that the information that has come to us through Macnaghten, Anderson, and Swanson is confused and may not give us the answer. For example what do we make of the fact that of Macnaghten's suspects one of them is Ostrog whom no one today, no one at all, considers as serious suspect??? Yet there he is listed in black and white as if the police thought he could have been the Ripper. I admire Martin Fido's persistence in believing David Cohen to be a viable suspect. I think that, given the mixups evident in the police notations (eg, Druitt, a doctor?), the name Kosminsky might have been misremembered, and it might not have been the suspect's true name.
I believe, however, that the poor Jew theory is just one of a number of theories that should be entertained and is not necessarily the answer to the mystery. I know Stewart Evans has severe reservations about profilers and I have to agree with him that the conclusion that the Ripper was someone "very like" Kosminsky or Cohen is a bit laughable, mere opinion, and not really helpful in terms of solving the crimes.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: stephen stanley
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 12:37 am | | I suppose the problem with all MacNaughton's suspects is that he only puts them forward as being more likely than Cutbush.....the fact he supplies names had possibly led to them being treated more seriously than he ever intended...
Steve S |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 05:06 am | | Regarding the reluctance of the police to reveal the suspect name in the Jack the Stripper crimes,does not in my opinion have the same impact
as the reluctance of Anderson to reveal the name of his suspect.
Were one able to peruse the files of the stripper crimes,I have no doubt that one would find a vast array of evidence supporting the police belief in the guilt of their suspect,as well as the suspect's name and personnel details.
It is the lack of detail that Anderson's memoirs
contain,that makes his statements hard to accept,
plus the lack of corroberative evidence that someone in his position should have been able to refer to.
H.Mann. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 05:12 am | | Some random thoughts and responses to the above.
Of the three people named by Macnaghten, one, Druitt, was Macnaghten's favoured candidate. Another, 'Kosminski', was favoured by Anderson and Swanson. I think it is therefore reasonable to suppose that these three men were other than just canditates 'more likely' than Cutbush to be the Ripper. I therefore think that it is foolhardy to too readily dismiss Ostrog. He got on that list and there was a reason for it. We don't know what that reason is.
As for looking to explain what motivated Anderson, anti-Semitism is an option and it would be foolish to overlook it, but we should similarly be careful not to use it as a scapegoat explanation for any accusation against a Jew. Jews committed crimes, just like everyone else, so some accusations against Jews were going to be fair and just even if the accuser is rabidly anti-Semitic. And as far as Anderson is concerned, I'm not sure that there is any evidence to show that he was anti-Semitic at all. Anti-Semitism is just one of any number of things that might have inclined Anderson and Swanson to pinning guilt on a Jew, but the bottom line is that the events themselves did take place. There was a witness who did identify the suspect - and if the witness was Israel Schwartz and he did see Stride's killer, I don't think we need look for explanations in senility, anti-Semitism or anything else.
Concerning why the suspect was never named, I suspect that this was partly due to the moral values these men upheld and partly due to legal constraints. Basically, no charges had been brought, no trial held, no evidence presented, no conviction won and no sentence given. Legally, no name could have been given.
A far more serious objection, in my view, is that no other senior officer so much as commented on Anderson's conclusion. This could mean that Anderson didn't reach that conclusion until long after the identification (the wishful thinking in old age theory advanced by Philip Sugden), but there is evidence that both Anderson and Swanson had arrived at their conclusion in the 1890s, when neither was a senile old dodderer. So, we have this problem: Anderson and Swanson believed they knew who the Ripper was, but nobody else comments on this (including Macnaghten). Why? The only reasonable solution, in my view, is that they didn't comment because they didn't know about it. But that doesn't it mean it never happened. What it does mean is that aspects of the story were not widely broadcast. What they were and why they were kept secret is another issue for debate. |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 06:41 am | | Graham - What interesting points you always raise. I hope you won't object that I simply differ from you over the likelihood of police information being generally shared once the case was no longer under direct investigation. In support of my position I would point to the fact that junior officers obviously knew nothing about the top brass's theories, since they repeatedly lean toward a doctor - possibly a local doctor, so presumably not either Druitt or Ostrog. Also to the fact that Smith doesn't seem to have heard anything about the full 'Macnaghten three' (if one might so name the suspects who, maybe without names, were apparently already known to Sims and Griffith). And to the fact that nobody in the Met seemed to have an inkling about Smith's supposed 'informant' who never turned up to the arranged meeting, and that Macnaghten's robust dismissal of Smith suggests a very complete contempt for anything he knew or thought he knew. And finally the fact that until Don Rumbelow got into the files and made them public for us, nobody apparently hd an inkling of suspects like Issenschmidt, and even now they are open and the sort of arrests being made in further flung boroughs are evident, too many Ripperologists still seem to think that only local lunatics came under investigation, and don't pay attention to the arrest of Mr Cow the rubber manufacturer et al, and the truly amazing interviewing of General Sir Sam Browne. Please be assured that I'm not claiming any of these points prove I'm right and you're wrong: I'm just indicating the sort of weight of evidence that has led me to my position.
And as far as names go, it has for ten years been a part of my theory that the Met really weren't sure of the name of the man they'd put in the asylum - ('David Cohen' in the morning: 'Aaron Davis Cohen' in the evening. No known relatives to confirm anything about him) - and so when they heard the name 'Kosminsky' as the young Whitechapel Polish Jew who went into the asylum, and whose name had been confirmed to the City Police by his family, they (or that handful at the top who knew about 'Cohen') thought he was the same person, accepted the name, and didn't give any more thought to a man they 'knew' to be dead. I further suggest that the matter would never have been cleared up between the two forces, because the Met had improperly used Lawende for their ID when using him should have passed the case over to the City, and the City (according to Swanson's notes) had improperly encroached on Met territry to surveil Kosminsky. Now much of that, as you can see, is deduction/speculation. And Don Rumbelow, while agreeing that there is a hiatus in the evidence of Anderson and Swanson that needs explanation, says firmly there must be a simpler answer than my suggestion of a hijacked City Police witness. It's open to you or anyone else to propose one that fits as many of the known facts as possible. I have yet to see any such suggestion.
Finally with regard to your profile. I don't think Victorian prudery and humbug can in any way affect the validity of modern-day profiling, and suspect from what you say that you haven't in fact read Olshaker and Douglas to validate your position. And in the matter of Mary Jane Kelly I disagree with you absolutely. From 1888 to 2000 all the people familiar in any way with this sort of crime - (and one must assume that Anderson, Macnaghten and Bond didn't just make up the category 'sex maniac' because they saw bodies in Whitechapel) - have unanimously agreed that the escalation of violence in the Ripper case points to the same hand running through Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Professor Luigi Cancrini, forensic psychologist of Bologna, went further, and said this escalating rage must ultimately turn inward, so he would expect the Ripper to have committed suicide. Then he saw Cohen's case notes, and agreed that the alternative lapse into raving mania was equally possible.
Then your response to Paul. The really interesting thing about the Anderson/Smith exchange (or, as Nick Connell and Stewart Evans have now demonstrated, the more important parallel Anderson/Jewish Chronicle exchange) is that Anderson didn't just absorb or ignore it. He made those small changes to his text betwen Blackwood's and the volume publication that are intriguing and (eg) allow Paul Begg to postulate that dropping the reference to ID in an asylum may possibly have been a correction and not a refinement, thus allowing him to give priority to Swanson's narrative.
Jim - your remarks about antiSemitism and police reaction seem to me highly pertinent and in accord with the evidence. Of course I differ from you in thinking Macnaghten's form of words discounts Anderson's testimony. In the Aberconway version, Macnaghten says the suspect 'in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City P.C. near Mitre Square.' Given (a) the distance and coolness that can be shown to have existed between Anderson and Macaghten, and (b) the degree of garbling evident in Macnaghten's account of Druitt, I think it is quite reasonable to postulate that the facts lying behind those words are 'the individual whose appearance was greeted with initial recognition by the City Police witness who had seen the Ripper near Mitre Square'.
Jon - thanks for the clarification. Yes, I agree that those best informed and closest to the case were looking for a Jew whose threatening behaviour to prostitutes seemed unbalanced, and I think they were doing so from the good evidence put before them that had led to the Leather Apron scare. I also agree that there would have been a number of disordered Jews in the district, making the search by obbo on the ground practically impossible. Certifiable mania like (though always milder than) Cohen's, as far as I recall from my survey occurred in individual Whitehapel Jews at something rather longer than six month intervals.
But see my point to Graham above for the reminder that nobody ever suggested that the Met close down all other avenues of enquiry, even when they were very far-fetched and potentially socially embarrassing.
Graham again - I don't think a habitual crusade preacher like Anderson would be surprised or shocked by human wickedness. That sort of hellfire raiser tends to expect more, not less of it than anyone else (as Moral Rearmament people used to say severely that men who wore green suits or suede shoes were obviously homosexual, which they regarded as wickedness.) Nor was he markedly prudish: he mentiones in his memoirs the occasion when a lady in a train thought he had exposed himself to her or made some such indecent advance. I don't think the kind of mealy-mouthed Victorian you propose would have dared describe such an incident.
As for his attitude to Jews, the following is not argument with you: just useful additional information to add to your thinking. His attitude to the Jews was so peculiar that Chief Rabbi Adler wrote to him protesting when he outlined it in one of his books. Anderson thought the Jews had failed to acknowledge the Messiahship of Jesus, and so were Wrong and maybe so much Of This World that (like the obvious case of the Wicked Church of Rome) they were Under the Overlordship of Satan. Yet even if this were the case, such firm Biblical promises had been made to them by God that Christians must respect their peculiar special case. (I said in another posting that some of his ideas were off the wall!) The interesting thing is that after starting a protesting correspondence, the Chief Rabbi became a good friend of Anderson's, and I believe delivered a eulogy at his funeral.
Leather Apron - many thanks for the good wishes.
Chris George - Where has Stewart expressed the view that 'David Cohen or someone very like him' is 'a bit laughable'? The book stating it has only just come out, and I've not seen any opinion from Stewart.
As an opinion, it would be in character with his casual conversation, which often uses hearty dismissive phrases about other people's work that he might not be prepared to put in print or a considered public statement. (I do the same thing myself). It's possible, of course, that Stewart thinks John Douglas's profiling the Ripper as self-evidently poppycock as the Maybrick diary was, in which case I think he's in for a surprise when he reads his fellow former police officer's work. In general it seems to me that those who dismiss offender profiling, as it were on principle, are only familiar with the popular work of David Canter and possibly Robert Ressler and Paul Britton. They don't, for example, appear to be familiar with the scholarly papers pubished by the FBI Behavioural Unit chaps, or to be aware how hugely favourably they compare with R.P. Brittain's long-running 'definitive' paper on sadistic murderers.
Of course, anyone is entitled to an opinion. But given that John Douglas is a very experienced practical field officer as well as a trained academic with a doctorate of education, I should be very cautious about giving an opinion that sounds like uninformed or unthinking prejudice preference over John's.
Stephen - when you take the memoirs into account as well as the memoranda, I don't think you can doubt that Macnaghten thought Druitt probably was the Ripper, with Kosminsky as 'runner-up'.
And a very merry Friday to any readers patient enough to have ploughed through this.
Martin Fido |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 09:05 am | | Hi, Martin
Excellently argued and very valid points from you as ever. You are correct in your belief that I haven't read the Olshaker & Douglas work (but I intend to, and no doubt what they have to say will clarify matters for me, and most likely show me the error of my ways). With regard to the Anderson/Smith relationship, I have the feeling Anderson would have argued against the Pope being Catholic if Smith had been the person stating this fact. This, of course, works the other way round too. Perhaps Smith knew exactly to whom Anderson was referring but argued against his suspect as a matter of cussedness, maybe even believing as he did so that Cohen was indeed the most likely candidate but not wanting to admit that Anderson was right.
From what you say re Kelly I get the feeling you may have thought I was suggesting that I didn't believe Kelly's killer also murdered the other victims. I feel sure he did (although I am tempted to exclude Stride and add Tabram - I think Jack may not have been responsibible for the death of the former but almost certainly was for the latter). The sheer ferocity of the last murder could have come about simply because Jack wasn't out in the open, and believed himself to be less open to discovery, even though in fact he was putting himself at far greater risk of being caught, or because his screaming psychosis demanded he remove every vestige of humanity from his victim. The most likely reason the mutilations were so extensive is because that was what it took in order for Jack to reach his goal (orgasm). If the mere act of cutting Kelly's throat had been enough to cause Jack to reach climax (which may raise points re the Stride case), it is almost certain he would have left the room shortly afterwards and not mutilated the body further. I would say the Kelly murder showed Jack that he had reached the point where there was very little else he could do to a corpse. Kelly was the very pinnacle. Whether this was by design because of who she was or not is open to debate - just like everything else in this case! But in my (admittedly addled) mind everything seems to point to Kelly being the focus of the seething fury within Jack. He saved his most extensive mutilations for her because he believed she was the very person in this world he could trust, or who could redeem him, and she had (for whatever reason he perceived) betrayed him. This could point to Barnett being the killer, and I certainly think Kelly's (ex)-lover is one of the more likely candidates. If evidence could be found that Barnett drank heavily up to the time of Kelly's murder, but abstained thereafter, the case against him would be very strong indeed. But I've never been able to shift myself for long from the opinion that Jack was someone the police never had under serious suspicion, if any at all. If Barnett is to be seriously considered, we then have to accept that the either he was extremely clever indeed or else the police really were bumbling incompetents.
I think the very fact that so many diverse characters were arrested and suspected at one time or another points to the utter lack of clues the authorities held in their possession. You put forward so well the argument for Cohen being Jack, with such obvious knowledge of all facets of the case, including some the more obscure areas of the mystery, that I almost wish some additional evidence would emerge to confirm your suspicions. I say 'almost' because if a definite (or close to it) revelation occurred, we would no longer have this wonderful mystery to debate.
I doubt that Anderson was actively anti-Semitic as such, but I do feel that faced with the choice between two suspects, one an Englishman and the other a Polish Jew, he'd prefer to think of the latter as guilty. Possibly this isn't the case at all, but the very environment in which people like Anderson existed, their moral standards, snobbishness, their belief that England was the centre of the world and foreigners tended to be untrustworthy wretches of questionable morality, point to this being so. Having said that, and with reference to what Paul said, even if Anderson did hold immigrant Jews in low regard, that doesn't mean one of them wasn't the Ripper.
I don't think a foreigner, or at least the Polish Jew, was responsible for a number of reasons. If several of the witnesses are to be believed, victims were seen talking to their killer shortly before they were murdered. Although it is entirely possible that Polish immigrants may have been able to speak fluent English, I would guess most couldn't. The impression we get from the witness statements is of a man chatting casually with these women, rather than attempting to make himself understood.
Another, to my way of thinking, very telling point is that Abberline named George Chapman as the person he thought most likely to have been Jack. Surely it's inconceivable that the very man in charge of the case wouldn't have been made aware that a suspect who was very probably Jack had been apprehended. Or did he merely confuse Chapman with the person named by Anderson (which is possible in view of the aliases Chapman used)?
Almost from the moment the crimes began, suspicions against foreigners, specifically Jews, were rife. How likely is it that such a person would have been able to gain the confidence of his victims? After the murder of Chapman there were all manner of obstacles in Jack's way. The vigilance committee, talk in the newspapers of undercover police officers adopting various disguises etc. And yet the killer had confidence enough in his abilities to take to the streets in search of further victims. Maybe he simply didn't recognise the danger in which he was placing himself and was very lucky indeed. More likely he was a clever and calculating man, possessed of considerably confidence. Would a Polish Jew adrift in a foreign country have held these attributes?
From the evidence presented at the various inquests, it would be a brave man who argued that Jack had no anatomical knowledge. I have little doubt that men like Baxter and Phillips would only have stated this if they'd been positive - think of the battering their reputations would have taken if the killer had been apprehended and found to have no medical knowledge at all. Which poses the question: how likely is it that this Polish immigrant had the required know-how to remove, for example, Annie Chapman's uterus with such skill and dexterity as was attested to?
I think if Anderson's suspect had been genuinely considered the Ripper, one person above all others would have been made aware of the fact - Queen Victoria. Having taken a keen interest in the events unfolding that autumn, I'm certain she would have been informed of any such startling developments. I have no idea how much of her correspondence remains, or how much is available for public scrutiny, but if there exists a letter, perhaps from Anderson himself, stating that a Polish Jew had been captured and was thought to be Jack - that would put a different light on matters.
Until such a time as more compelling evidence against Cohen or any immigrant emerges, I shall continue to fumble round in the dark with a box of damp matches in the hope that one will ignite and show me the true face of Jack the Ripper.
Best regs,
Graham |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 09:06 am | | Hello Graham,
When I read your post of Thursday 23rd Nov,to Martin, I had quite a strange feeling that I was reading my own words. From your second paragraph onwards your views and mine are identical, word for word, from what I also think the people of Victorian East London were like compared to todays people,-- to who you think JtR could possibly have been and also what you think his characteristics would have been. Seems your suspect would be the man involved with taking Mary to France, until you could prove his innocence?.I'd never scorn another persons suspect, I hope I never have!. I would just like to ask you how you relate your man to the three,-- or four previous murders?. I always take the easiest, most logical, (to me), path. My suspect, as everyone on these boards know, is Joseph Barnett, no matter what anyone else comes up with I can't shake him off. taking the circumstances of Mary Kelly's murder,-- every last one!, nobody could be that close and not be guilty. And if he was guilty of Mary's murder, then he's guilty of the previous three or four!. If there's nothing to link him with the previous killings, thats exactly why he got away with it, he was too respectable, too "clean" in character, too much "grieving partner", for the police to consider too much. But that doesn't mean he didn't have skeletons in his cupboard that we shall never know of! I've read the books, I've come to my conclusion-- till someone comes up with a better suspect, it's not for me to prove he is guilty, its for professionals to prove it's completely out of the question that he could be guilty. When Steven Knight wrote his book, "The final solution", he interveiwed an elderly nun who as a novice in 1915 served at Providence Row at the end of Dorset St. She clearly remembered an old nun who had been there at the time of the Ripper murders telling her, "if it had not been for the Kelly woman none of the murders would have happened". Maybe thats truer than Mr Knight thought, and different to how he interpreted it. He linked it to his conspiracy theory, I would say , perhaps she meant if Kelly had never come into Barnett's life, Barnett would never have become JtR. Like you Graham, I think JtR was a man who went through his life with a madness/ability to kill if his reason for it was strong enough, he was hard enough or it meant little to him, to be able to mutilate a body after death--it was just meat after all. He didn't suffer from a madness that made him want to continue killing after the reason had disappeared. After all, we all have a little insanity in us---we couldn't live if we didn't,-----could we?
My Regards Rick.
Martin and Chris,
Thank you both for putting me straight about the cover of the AtoZ, you've satisfied my curiosity.
Rick |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 10:31 am | | Rick, Hi
Good to know I'm not alone in my (eccentric?) beliefs. As I stated in my last post, I definitely think Joe Barnett is a very plausible candidate. The only thing which has tended to pull me away from him is the fact that the police (who were surely desperate for a result by the time of Kelly's murder) let him go so easily. But I agree with you entirely that he seems to fit the mould. Outwardly respectable if lower class, known to be kind to Mary Jane, and diligent in his attempts to keep her off the streets. Also a well liked local figure who could have come and gone without attracting undue attention, and with an excellent knowledge of the locality. An invisible man, beyond suspicion. Bruce Paley presents a compelling case - but then so do many Ripper writers when discussing their own suspects. As I also mention above, I reckon if evidence of Barnett's transition from heavy drinker to abstainer could be proved, it would surely make him the number one candidate (although many, yourself included, already believe he is, with very good reason).
Over the years I've put together many an argument for and against each of the suspects, and of those known to us it is always Barnett who comes out on top. I have often wondered if Kelly did tend to favour those of her own sex as lovers, which has been claimed. She would have sold her body to men simply as a means of survival, but may well not have actually enjoyed their intimate company. I also have a feeling she may have refused Barnett sex latterly, despite the fact that she gave herself to anyone with a few coppers to spare, and possibly to her female prostitute lover too. Imagine Barnett's frustration and rage! Imagine also that during the evening of 8 November Barnett called at the room in Miller's Court, and was scorned by Mary Jane. 'You'll never be able to satisfy me the way Maria Harvey can!' Or perhaps he even caught her in bed with Maria, or spied them through the window.
I have read more than once that all of the previous victims, including Tabram, were know at one time or another as Mary Ann. Maybe just the Mary part is enough for the killer to use her as a substitute. If this is indeed true, it seems improbable that those killed were merely ripped at random. Most likely they weren't anyway.
If we can accept that either Barnett was clever enough to deceive the police (and there is ample evidence of others being able to do so, such as Sutcliffe), or else they simply weren't as sharp as they should have been and overlooked potentially vital clues (which again draws parallels to the Yorkshire Ripper case), then Kelly's common-law husband has to be the chief suspect. Even if it wasn't Barnett, I would stake everything on the killer being someone she knew.
There must be some reasonable arguments against Barnett, and I'd very much like to study them. I wonder if there is anything substantial to suggest that he WASN'T Jack? If he was well known in the area, wouldn't he have been recognised consorting with prostitutes? This would have gone in the face of his efforts to steer MJK away from that sort of life. Or maybe he simply did what I believe Jack to have done: put on some form of disguise when he went out on the prowl. And who can say - perhaps the reason he had so little money to give Kelly was because he was spending it elsewhere - such as on clothes and the alternative accomodation it would have been necessary for him to have in order to store his momentoes and blood stained garments.
The thing I love about the Ripper case is the possibilities - so many, almost limitless, and their discussion is always fascinating and extremely enjoyable.
Best regs,
Graham |
Author: Jon
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 10:46 am | | Martin
You pointed out....
But see my point to Graham above for the reminder that nobody ever suggested that the Met close down all other avenues of enquiry, even when they were very far-fetched and potentially socially embarrassing
I agree, nobody has suggested such a thing, what we are left with is the more memorable ones. For instance, Mr Pastry the baker & Molly maid the cleaner and Mr Black the chimney sweep had little in common, except to live in the vicinity. However, there are a number to which I refered that do indeed have a common denominator, as it was only these that frequently recur.
If Cohen was not considered, then maybe it was because of something obvious that never made it into print. Going from the sublime to the ridiculous, he may have been visually impaired (blind?) or even only had one leg (joking). But the fact was so obvious it simply never got wrote down.
Sadly, its all we don't know, that fuels our debates.
Jack (L.A.)
Ho ho ho....
You better be carefull my friend, (re, your poste of Nov. 23rd, 5:13pm) you are going to be labelled as someone else who thinks Jack had purpose. The usual contra argument to that is that the Doctors in 1888 lacked our informed medical knowledge, therefore modern opinion can overrule those who were on the spot. They simply were not as educated and experienced as some of todays 'mindhunters'. However, the extract you posted makes it abundently clear that some of today's intellectual opinion's are not always worth the paper they are written on, regardless who wrote them.
It is sad that some people will try to discredit the opinions of those who were there and involved in the investigations, and the witnesses, in order to propose their modern day 'solutions'.
The exisitng medical evidence can be interpreted in many ways. In 1888 the opinion was raised that this killer had purpose, it was also raised that this killer was a sexual lunatic. Both opinions are valid, but more importantly, both opinions are equally supported by the evidence. And neither opinion can be ruled out. Not until a motive is established. Its just a shame that the sexual killer view gets more press (obviously, its more appealing), but this does not mean it is the only interpretion, neither is it an accepted fact.
This board is really absorbing....well done, all of you.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 10:56 am | | Hi Martin:
I should clarify that I am not claiming that Stewart Evans has said the profilers' conclusion that the Ripper was David Cohen or Kosminski or someone like them "is laughable." Those are my words, and I apologize if I gave the impression that Stewart actually said as much. I do though know that Stewart feels that profiling has little utility in the search for the Ripper and feels as a former police officer that profiling is a weak procedure for finding criminals. Along with Stewart, I regret that the profiler's method may be seen as providing the key to the murders.
Paul makes a very good point when he says that it is significant that "no other senior officer [besides Swanson] so much as commented on Anderson's conclusion" that the Ripper had been named. In fact, what we have rather is the opposite situation, that one very senior policeman, Major Smith, denies Anderson's claim that the Ripper was identified. Abberline for his part went out on a limb to name George Chapman (Severin Klosowski) as the Ripper. Meanwhile Inspector Reid stated, "I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence against anyone. The earth has been raked over and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal. . . always without success. It still amuses me to read the writings of. . . Dr. Anderson. . . and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong. . . . I was on the scene and ought to know." (Inspector Edmund Reid quoted in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, April 2, 1902, reprinted in Connell and Evans, "The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper," pp. 153-4).
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 12:55 pm | | Hi Chris:
‘one very senior policeman, Major Smith, denies Anderson's claim that the Ripper was identified.’
Does Major Smith actually deny Anderson’s claim? As I recall, his Ripper chapter opened with Major Smith saying that he had no idea where the Ripper ‘lived’ (which may or may not be a significant usage of word), but concludes by saying that since writing the chapter he’d been informed about Anderson’s article in Blackwood’s Magazine. He then tears into Anderson for his remarks about the Jews protecting the murderer. But I don’t think Major Smith ever specifically says that Anderson is talking twaddle and tosh about the suspect.
And is there perhaps a lesson to be learned from the lack of interest in the identity of the Ripper evinced by both Smith and ‘Mentor’ (in the Jewish Chronicle), a lack of interest even shared in the House of Commons, where Anderson’s Times articles caused a furore? Would be right in surmising that in 1910 people really weren’t interested in who the Ripper was?
I think it would be worthwhile to clearly distinguish between the events(i.e., witness, suspect, identification) and the conclusion. Let’s forget about Anderson’s conclusion. If the events took place, why didn’t anyone comment on them? Why, for example, didn’t Macnaghten say that Kosminski had been identified by an eye-witness and acknowledge his superior’s belief in the value of that eye-witness identification? Why didn’t Reid say that he didn’t share Mr Anderson’s conclusion about the value of the eye-witness testimony and say why? Why is there silence, as if it never happened? Well, unless it really didn’t actually happen, it seems to me that we are compelled to ask whether the silence means that nobody knew about it. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 01:29 pm | | Hi, Paul:
Perhaps Major Smith does not actually deny Anderson's claim in so many words. However, it is very evident that he puts no credence in it. This is clear because in "From Constable to Commissioner" on page 147, before he begins to disuss Anderson's reminiscences, he states, that the Ripper "completely beat me and every police officer in London" -- i.e., the Ripper beat Anderson, Smith, everybody. Smith also denigrates Anderson's waffling (if such it is) by stating (p. 162), "Sir Robert Anderson spent, so he tells us, the day of his return from abroad and half the following night 'in reinvestigating the whole case.' A more fruitless investigation. . . it would be difficult to imagine." In other words, Smith is in exactly the same boat as Inspector Reid in maintaining that the Ripper was never conclusively identified.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 01:46 pm | | Hi Chris
As I read it, Smith wrote about the Ripper beating him and every officer in London before he learned about Anderson's articles in Blackwood's.
He also says 'A more fruitless investigation, looking at all he tells us, it would be difficult to imagine.'
Again, as I read it, Smith is commenting very specifically on what Anderson has written (i.e., 'all he tells us'), which for him is clearly coloured by what he thinks are Anderson's unjustified remarks about the Jews. Since Smith rejects the Jewish statements (largely, I think, because he misunderstood what Anderson was actually saying), he thus rejects everything. But was he really in a position to do that? He could reject Anderson's conclusion, he could even reject the early profile the Yard had drawn up, but did he deny the suspect/witness/identification? |
Author: Jon
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 02:04 pm | | Graham
I wonder if you were present during our last barney over Barnett some weeks ago. (Suspects, - Joe Barnett menu, October 07, 2000, 5:34pm) Barnett certainly does have his supporters and as a suspect in the death of Mary he is an obvious first choice. The ‘spouse’ is always the first one police will turn to in order to ‘help them with their enquiries’.
But beyond that there is nothing else to implicate him in the other murders, which is the main stumbling block for many others like myself.
We stepped through Bruce Paley’s 10 main points (his choice), for his case against Barnett, and taking them one at a time it was demonstrated that they are not much of a case at all.
Paley & Harrison did both propose him and Paley did some excellent background research on the times and social infrastructure of the case. But as for research to implicate Barnett specifically, he came up empty. Where Paley could not substantiate a fact about Barnett’s life, due to lack of records, he made assumptions. And these assumptions were always in the negative, it was these assumptions that were the backbone of his case against Barnett, not the results of his actual research.
Barnett may well have killed Mary, he even may have been Jack. But on the strength of Paley's case against him, he cannot be said to be a good suspect, no more than several hundred other locals who lived in the immediate area.
The police likely learned more about Barnett and his actions in those months than we will ever know, they learned enough about him to clear him. I think we can reasonably conclude that the police knew about all those points that Paley raised, and they still cleared him.
We should not, in all good conscience, implicate or incriminate someone on the strength of what we do NOT know about them. Unfortunately, most of the modern suspects are presented in exactly this way.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 03:18 pm | | Forgive me for adding my twopence worth on this one :
I think I am right in stating that Anderson , in stating his three suspects , merely said that any one of them was more likely to be the Ripper than Thomas Cutbush. This surely means that Anderson did not know who the Ripper was , he was merely offering his opinion on whom he was most likely to be. Thus Anderson did not know the identity of the Ripper in 1894 , or if he did he did not state it , merely offering some speculations on whom he might have been.
Is this correct and relevant to the argument ? |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 03:40 pm | | Hi, Jon
Alas, no I wasn't present here as far back as early October. Only discovered casebook about a fortnight ago. What you say regarding Barnett is what I suspected: that there really isn't very much to go on or to link Barnett to the crimes. That said, I would still favour him over any of the candidates who have actually been named. But there are indeed a number of points which need to be raised, not least would Barnett have had the necessary medical knowledge? I know the case has been argued many times that the Ripper didn't in fact possess any particular skills in this direction at all, but to say this directly refutes much of the actual evidence and expert testimony.
The main reason that I've always tried to avoid plumping for a specific suspect is because once one does, there is a natural inclination to try and bend bits and pieces of info to fit. Which takes me back to what I've always believed, namely that Jack isn't any one of those named, and whose name was probably never once mentioned in direct connection with the crimes he committed.
Having said that, the broken window(s) at the room in Miller's Court may provide a vital clue (or not). There is some evidence to suggest that more than one pane of glass was broken - and if this is the case, then it's quite feasible that Kelly and Barnett slipped a hand through the first hole to fasten and unfasten their door (although this must have been potentially very dangerous if there were jagged shards still remaining, as at least one contemporary illustration suggests). If, however, all of the panes via which the door catch/lock/whatever could be reached were intact up to the time of the 'violent quarrel' on 30 October, that means Barnett lied to the police, and to have done so he must have had a reason.
If Barnett is ever proved to be Jack, I'd say the reason he never came under closer scrutiny is for the reasons stated earlier by Rick: he seemed too plausible. Throughout the whole investigation, the impression is given that the police were looking for someone who actually *appeared* capable of committing the crimes, which is to say foaming at the mouth, barking at the moon, stalking the streets with bloody knife raised and demonic curses streaming from his vile mouth (such descriptions as 'evil fiend' and 'mad doctor' abound). Although more experienced officers, like Abberline and the big chiefs, would no doubt have taken a broader view of things, there is evidence in abundance to suggest that the men who actually walked the beat were of the opinion the JtR was 'insane', visibly so (underlined by Forbes Winslow's claim that he could spot a nutcase at fifty paces - he seemed to imagine there to be an obviously barking headcase roaming the streets with the police somehow failing to notice and apprehend him). And that is why the killer so completely eluded justice: he seemed so normal. Perhaps he regularly asked a passing policeman if any progress had been made, little things like that. It is almost certain that Jack was known and trusted by the people of Whitechapel, and I have little doubt they would have expressed similar disbelief that he could have been the murderer if caught as have many friends and relatives of serial killers. Certain immigrants were no doubt well respected within the own communities, but not be the populace at large. Mind you, Barnett was an Irish immigrant so maybe some folks at the time classed him in this mould too, although I don't think it would be quite the same as with a 'real' foreigner.
Best regs,
Graham |
Author: Jon
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 10:03 pm | | Hi Graham
You're correct, there's nothing to incriminate Barnett, just a lot of 'if's', 'but's' & 'maybe's'.
But, thats the case with most of the suspects, and I also share your view that Jack is yet to be named. Each suspect has a little about him that is plausible, like Druitt and the chalk (teacher) and his questionable sanity, or not. And Tumblety and the uterii, and any Doctor for the medical experience, Kosminski (or Cohen) for the insanity, etc...with Barnett I think it is his appearance, which happens to fit one particular description of a wanted man (Lawende's man).
But when you roll all of the ingredients together,...the slipper fits no-one. Its a Cinderella of crime stories......who doth the shoe fit?
And of course there is the old teaser....was Mary really the last victim?....and if so, was the killer really looking for her to start with? Which is almost intollerable in some circles.....that question smacks of conspiracy....and we all know where that leads.
Its a spiders web of intrigue and speculation, but I wouldn't swap it for any other mystery.
Have you visited this site?
http://www.casebook-productions.org/main.htm
It's the best site for Ripper facts yet developed.
Welcome, Graham.
(abandon hope all ye who enter here) |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 11:23 pm | | Jon:
Thanks for putting in a plug for the Casebook Productions site.
Simon:
You mean that it was Sir Melville Macnaghten, not Anderson who named the three suspects whom he said were better suspects than Cutbush. And I agree, that is the context.
Paul:
I think the point is that it is patently obvious Major Smith does not in any way endorse what Anderson has written. He could have said that Anderson was labeling a whole sector of the East End as being against the police and unhelpful in not turning over one of their own, even though the man was the Ripper. But he says nothing of the kind as if all that Anderson says is off-base about the killer having been positively identified. I agree that the implication is that there was a strong suspect who happened to be a Jew, but just as our friends the profilers say, it does not mean he was the Ripper. 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: stephen stanley
Saturday, 25 November 2000 - 01:14 am | | | It seems to me that the context of MacNaughton's words ,whilst seemingly favouring Druitt don't really seem all that concerned about the suspects....being much more concerned with 'clearing' Cutbush...the suspects just seemed named as examples...however, the appearance of Kosminski here and in the Swanson Marginalia (tying in with Anderson's suspect) do seem to indicate he may well have been a serious contemporary suspect...I'd love to know MacNaughton's sources..... |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Saturday, 25 November 2000 - 04:14 am | | Hi, Jon
Yes, I came upon the casebook-productions site a couple of days ago. Excellent, it really is. Of everything there, I think it was the two virtual views MJK's rooms which I found most fascinating, used as I am to seeing just a small part of it from the photographs.
There can be little argument that Lawende's description fits that of Barnett pretty closely, and this above all others is likely to have been a true sighting of the killer. IMHO too much emphasis has been placed on what the witnesses in Berner Street saw. Although I wouldn't dispute that Diemshutz and others may have seen the murderer of Liz Stride, I don't think her killer and Jack are the same person, and there is much evidence to support this.
As you say, there are just so many potential JtRs running around, and while each of them has at least some small piece of plausibility about him, taken from brutally logical viewpoint it is pretty clear that none of them are the real Whitechapel fiend based solely on definitely ascertained facts. Of course, it is entirely possible that real evidence to strongly implicate one of the 'names' may yet emerge, but I don't believe it has yet. So where is the bugger lurking? Why has no one unmasked him? Probably because he was very careful and was never suspected at any time.
Best regs,
Graham |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 25 November 2000 - 04:53 am | | Hi Simon: As has already been pointed out, it was Macnaghten who named the three suspects, one being, Druitt, whom he favoured. As said, another was ‘Kosminski’, of whom Macnaghten himself admits (in the SY version of the Memoranda) ‘There were many circs connected with this man which made him a strong suspect.’ I think it is safe to say that these three men were serious suspects, not just folk who made Cutbush look a cherub-faced innocent by comparison.
Chris: I understand and appreciate your reading of Major Smith, but I think it is perilous to say with any certainty that Smith condemned Anderson’s suspect. On these Boards we have messages arguing at length that Anderson’s willingness to blame a Jew was based on anti-Semitism, but these arguments refer – not always very clearly – to Anderson’s conclusion, not to the identification, which very often isn’t even addressed, and it would be quite wrong to assume that in dismissing Anderson’s conclusion the poster is saying that the identification never took place. It is, I think, equally wrong to assume that Smith was rejecting Anderson’s suspect when condemning Anderson’s apparent accusation of Jewish complicity by sheltering the murderer.
The distinction is very clear in the letters by ‘Mentor’ in the Jewish Chronicle and it is even recognised by Anderson himself, who in The Globe didn’t try to argue the case for his suspect, but was in an agony to make clear that he didn’t intend to paint the Jews in a bad light, but was just stating fact: ‘“When I stated that the murderer was a Jew, I was stating a simple matter of fact. It is not a matter of theory. I should be the last man in the world to say anything reflecting on the Jews as a community…”’ And so on. And in a letter to the Jewish Chronicle he wrote ‘will you allow me to express the sincere distress I feel that my words should be construed as ‘an aspersion upon Jews.’
‘Mentor’, in reply, makes the distinction even clearer. He said that he was not interested in the revelation that the murderer was a Jew (he did point out that no conviction had been achieved), though he felt that the revelation served no good purpose, could do damage, and would have been better left unrevealed. What he objected to was the claim that Jews had knowingly shielded the murderer. There is, I think, no real reason to suppose that either Major Smith or ‘Mentor’ were interested in the evidence on which Anderson’s theory was based. They were simply concerned to condemn his rash indictment of the Jewish population as a whole. Anderson, likewise, was at pains not to prove the guilt of his suspect, but to make clear that he had not intended to condemn the Jews as a whole.
(I think in effect it might be fair to say that mothers have been known to ignore, protect and defend sons who have committed the most heinous of crimes. To say that all mothers would do this would obviously be a misnomer, but it would not be wrong to say that some do. This, basically, is all that Anderson was saying. Unfortunately he thoughtlessly said it about a community understandably sensitive to such sweeping generalisations.)
What makes it difficult for us to accept this is perspective. For us the question of the identity of the Ripper is paramount, but then it was a matter of no or little interest. In the House of Commons at the time a Mr. MacVeagh asked whether Anderson had obtained permission to make his Ripper revelations. Mr Chgurchill replied by saying that Anderson had not, but that the matter was of minor importance ‘in comparison with others that arise in connexion with the same series of articles.”
This apparent lack of interest suggests that information wasn’t shared. None of the policemen seem to have known much if anything about any suspects held paramount by colleagues and superiors. Littlechild had never heard of Druitt (if Dr. D is Druitt). Macnaghten arguably didn’t know that Anderson and Swanson believed the Ripper was the Polish Jew (for had he done he presumably wouldn’t have so pointedly favoured his own suspect over that of his superiors). Did Abberline even know about Druitt? He knows that a report was sent to the Home Office about a ‘young doctor’ found in the Thames shortly after the last murder, but, he says, ‘ there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him’ and observes that as investigations were re-started several months after December 1888, this ‘seems to point to the conclusion that Scotland Yard did not in any way consider the evidence as final.’
But Abberline was actually about to write to Macnaghten offering him his theories about George Chapman, yet in an interview with a journalist rubbished Macnaghten’s theory in a way that made Macnaghten look a total buffoon who’d believe a bloke guilty simply because he chose a suspicious time to drown himself!
Was Abberline really talking about Druitt. Or was he shooting his mouth off about something he really knew nothing about? If the former, are we really expected to believe that Sir Melville Macnaghten based his beliefs on nothing more than a death in the Thames coincident with the last murder? Are we expected to believe that suspicion fell on Druitt in 1888? Can Druitt really be dismissed for that reason? Not according to Macnaghten. He says that his beliefs about Druitt were based on ‘private information’ personally received some years after the murders: …certain facts pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer’, That’s ‘some years’ after 1890, but before the Memoranda was penned in 1894. And what sort of police force is Abberline describing when it can label a far from uncommon suicidee in the Thames as the Ripper for no other reason than that he dies soon after a series of murders no one would (presumably) have had reason to suppose had come to an end?
So, was Abberline, who retired in 1892 and who may not have been at the Yard when Macnaghten received his information, actually talking about Druitt. Was there ever a Druitt-related report sent to the Home Office? Did Abberline read it? Did Abberline have the remotest idea about the ‘evidence’ against Druitt?
As ever there are several permutations and evidences lending weight to this or that aspect of the account, but the impression one gets it that either Abberline was talking about someone we don’t know about or, if talking about Druitt, had very little information at his disposal. what he did have was inaccurate, and none of it based on direct personal experience. Littlechild, as observed, also didn’t know anything about druitt (with the caveat already stated). So was there discussion, did anyone know what others thought or have the merest grasp of the evidence on which the beliefs were based? Did people simply not care. There’s no evidence that the merits of respective theories were known or discussed. Macnaghten believed it was Druitt in 1894 and he continued to believe it throughout his career and up to at least 1913 when he published his memoirs, seemingly unaffected by Anderson’s revelations in 1910. I’m not sure that this can be taken as a rejection of Anderson’s theory, but more likely ignorance of it or just a general air of it being unimportant. And I am not sure that Major Smith can’t be similarly viewed. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 25 November 2000 - 05:02 am | | Re- Martin's remark above, "...this is reminiscent of the extremely misleading remark in Evans and Skinner's appendix of characters to the effect that he [Anderson] took no active part in the investigation." This is, to my mind, an exercise in semantics, for a mere reading of our text clearly shows exactly what Anderson did and when he did it.
Martin must forgive me for sometimes thinking or speaking as a police officer. Having been one for nearly 28 years it's difficult not to do so. Anderson was the overall head and supervisor of the C.I.D. at the time of the murders. Therefore it is to be expected that he would read the case files, sometimes mark them up, and visit the odd crime scene. This does NOT, in police terms, make him part of the active investigation. As is well known that accolade may be safely applied to Swanson as the highest ranking officer involved in the active investigation. Indeed, for instance, Swanson went out and took details from Forbes Winslow and also personally supervised interviews.
As I say, this may be an exercise in semantics, but may I allay Martin's fears by saying that I am not trying to reduce Anderson's importance in any way, nor am I trying to be derogatory to him. |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 25 November 2000 - 07:04 am | | Hi Paul:
Thank you so much for your detailed reply on Anderson and Smith. Yes, it's true that Smith seems intent on battling what he viewed as a slur on the Jewish population and does not address the viability of the Jewish suspect. I also think your point is well taken that individual police officers do not seem to have known about each other's suspects. This though does re-emphasize my point that there probably was not an end to the investigation that saw a general concensus that the police had got their man.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 25 November 2000 - 07:57 am | | Hi Chris
I agree wholeheartedly that there was no general consensus that they'd got their man and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. All I meant was that Anderson had reasons for thinking the Ripper was the Polish Jew. We don't know what those reasons were and, it would seem, nobody else (except Swanson) did either. Major Smith therefore doesn't stand against the validity of Anderson's suspect, though, as with all evidence, we should be cognizant of what he says. |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 25 November 2000 - 02:35 pm | | I think that of Macnaughtons 3 suspects , we can at least discount Ostrog.
This man was probably in his 50s at the time of the murders , and was 5'11" tall , thus his description does not tally with any of the witness accounts of the man or men seen with the victims. Despite his mental illness he had no record of violence or of cruelty to women that we know of , thus was Macnaughton correct in his summary of his character therefore ? |
|
|
|
|
