|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 86
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 8:34 pm: | 
|
Sorry I had to start a new thread under Abberline but there really was no other way of doing this, as far as I know. I had to pick a police official and I guessed Abberline was the most equivocal (open-mnded) in terms of solving the case. And of course he is the modern antithesis of Jack the Ripper.
I don't expect anyone to answer the question as it is rhetorical, but what I am asking essetially is, did the police know the identity of JTR? If they did, I am guessing it was Kosminski. If they didn't then it blows the case wide open.
Perhaps it was a seaman, a tramp, a painter, a Royal or even a pauper. But one thing was for sure, he didn't want his identity to be known. It was someone who was unproud of himself, someone who didn't want to be written into the annals of history (unless you believe the Diary!) and yet he went about his daily business with a penchant of blaseness.
I recently watched a BBC documnetary screened for the first time about Prince Eddy (last night in fact), and it really does destroy the whole fantasy of the Royalists but if only they are prepared to listen to the facts. The bbc made the point brilliantly that it is very easy to accuse someone who is unable to defend oneself; I think this applies to Maybrick, Tumblety, Druitt, Thompson, Gull, etc. What they came to eventually was that he was in the wrong place at the right time. In fact he was in Scotland at the time of one of the crimes but this doesn't stop people accusing him of being JTR - this is absurd.
I think Wolf Vanderlinden's article about Tumblety being a suspect would certainly make you think twice again but I'm not sure it is his point. After reading it, it takes the edge of Tumblety altogether. It seems the only reason I ever suspected him was because he was pursued by Scotland Yard but the facts would indicate otherwise. I always overlooked the fact that he was "too tall" or "too old" but now this must surely add to the evidence against him ever committing murders in August, September and November 1888? The only thing that prevents me from thinking that the murders went right on into the next year and thereafter was the fact that William Henry Bury was arrested in the first half of 1889. (prob in late Feb, possibly in early March).
Don't ever overlook his candidacy as JTR - even to be hung in that year requires an abomnible crime to have been committed. Don't get this wrong, people did not hang people for nothing despite what you are told today, they had to have a good reason. He was found guilty beyond doubt for the murder of his wife. Only 800 hangings per year took place in Elizabethan era (1558-1603) and this tailed of each year thereafter. In fact, Bury's was the last of his kind in Dundee. In other words, the accusers had to be sure of the crime and not only that but also persuade the jury that it was the most heinious of evils. And this is what they managed to do. But then again, Bury was standing up for himself in the dock.
I guess what I am trying to say is not that I Know WHB was JTR but only that the circumstantial evidence (and also a lot of the witness's evidence) points that way. The only thing that has stood against it in my mind is that I always thought a lot more than the canonical five were victims. In fact, I would also include Francis Coles in this, but she died in 1891 - 2 years after his hanging. All of them could have been homicidal victims though as he was never caught, no matter what the police say. And the verdict was always the same - "Murder by person or persons unknown". And surely even in a time of destitution and unrivalled poverty, the verdict, "Murder by person or persons unknown", was a rare conclusion? Maybe some historians can give us a clue.
But in an ethos of Big Brother cameras and Freedom of Speech it is hard for us to imagine just how Jack could escape Venus' flytrap - but he did. And it was probably a lot easier than it seems today.
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 221
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 5:35 am: |
|
Martin,
A big stumbling block,when any of the nominated suspects are considered,is the murder of Kelly.She was killed indoors,and except for Hutchinson's story,there is no indication how the murderer gained access.Hutchinson has Kelly on the street seeking money,meeting a man and taking him to her room.A plausible explanation of how access was gained,the problem is that suspect does not resemble,and cannot be identified,as any one of the popular suspects,and Kelly cannot be placed on the street at a later time,when she could have met someone else.
Untill the problem of access is solved,and I cannot see it ever will,then one of the most important pieces of evidence will remain unknown.
For any theory to have merit,it must be shown how and when the killer entered.Even if the police of that day had ideas as to who the murderer might be,placing the individual in Kelly's room would be a hard task,and without that,there can be no case against them. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 427
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 11:09 am: |
|
Hi,
Tumblety was never a realistic candidate, reading the Littlechild letter it is obvious that Littlechild himself did not know what happened to him, hardly what one would have expected with a ‘prime’ suspect.
The main point about him being pursued by Scotland Yard detectives is false. He was never pursued. The detective was actually in North America before him – surely the first case of the pursuer actually being in front of the pursuee! (is there such a word?)
Now on to GH and MJK.
Harry wrote:
‘A big stumbling block,when any of the nominated suspects are considered,is the murder of Kelly.She was killed indoors,and except for Hutchinson's story,there is no indication how the murderer gained access’
Well let’s consider it. There are only three logical ways to gain access to MJK’s room.
1. With a key
2. By slipping the latch/picking the lock
3. The door not being locked.
There is an indication that MJK did not lock her door when she left the room but kept it on the latch. Coming back in an inebriated condition with a customer, it is entirely possible she forgot to slip the catch when she was back inside her room, and no reason to suppose the customer would on his way out. So when JTR comes to call the door is in fact - open. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 998
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
The police apparently had two main theories concerning the suspect:
1. A "polish Jew" (Kosminski-type) as evidenced by Anderson and Swanson.
2. A "drowned doctor" (Druitt-type) as evidenced primarily by Macnaghten.
The intriguing thing about Abberline is that he so flatly rejects #2 yet does not accept #1 but rather opts for Chapman, unless his choice of Chapman was, in fact, an acceptance of a Kosminski-type due to the similarity of names (Klosowski/Kosminski) -- but there are few other similarities.
I have a hypothesis about Abberline. It is only a hypothesis and not a theory because there is no way to prove or even test it. Since Abberline was originally a Dorset man, and his second wife also hailed from there, and since he retired to Bournmouth (yes, I know it is a common retirement area) it is not unlikely that he was acquainted with the prominent Druitt family. I consider it possible that Abberline's puzzling identification of Chapman with the Ripper was a "red herring" tossed out to keep the press off the Druitt trail. Unfortunately, unless anyone can find a definite tie between the Abberline and Druitt families it is only a hypothesis.
Andy S.
(Message edited by aspallek on November 29, 2005) |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1705
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 1:13 pm: |
|
Hi Andy
What you say about Abberline probably knowing the Druitt family is conceivable. In the cemetery where Abberline is buried in Bournemouth, there are Druitt burials, although Ripper suspect Montague John Druitt himself is buried at Wimborne Minster, not too far from Blandford Forum, from where Abberline hailed.
In the two-part Pall Mall Gazette article of 1903 in which Abberline names George Chapman (Severin Klosowski) as a good suspect as the Ripper, the former Scotland Yard man expressly rejects the "drowned man" theory and indicates that at the time of the murders no one at Scotland Yard knew for certain who the Ripper was, and states that the same was true at the time he spoke. But that, as you say, could have been possibly to deflect attention from the Druitt family.
Chris
(Message edited by Chrisg on November 29, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 999
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 1:25 pm: |
|
Thanks, Chris. Just for the record, I didn't say that Abblerline "probably" knew the Druitt family. I said it was "not unlikely."
There is a certain intangible quality in the Abberline interview from the Pall Mall Gazette that bothers me. It seems to me that Abberline is pretending. A fall in the garden several days earlier prevented him from writing the newspaper about his conclusions??? The way he carries on about Chapman is does not ring true for a man who was so deeply involved in the case. While it is not impossible that Chapman was the Ripper it is certainly nowhere near obvious, which is what Abberline tries to convey. It just all sounds fishy to me.
You are right about the Druitt graves (but not Monty's) being in the same cemetery as Abberline, though they are not near Abberline's grave).
Andy S. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1706
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 1:46 pm: |
|
Hi Andy
I think the fact that Chapman lived in the East End around the time of the murders made him an attractive candidate for the Ripper.
You are right that the similarity of the names Klosowski / Kosminski might have had something to do with it and both men did come from Poland. It does also seem that Chapman sometimes posed as a Jew.
I don't find the fall in the garden that Abberline sustained that stopped him writing to Scotland Yard about Chapman to be an unlikely scenario.
The intangible or odd part of the Pall Mall Gazette interview might be as much Abberline holding back as whatever the writer might have added to or left out of the interview to tailor the piece for publication.
I am not saying that the writer necessarily embroidered on what Abberline said. However, it is possible, for example, that due to the newsworthiness of the Chapman case, the writer could have emphasized Abberline's apparent certainty about Chapman's candidacy and made it seem greater than it actually was.
As I wrote in my last post, the singling out of Chapman as a likely suspect is at odds with the other statements that Abberline made in the same interview that no one at Scotland Yard at the time of the murders or when he spoke knew who the Ripper could have been. These statements by Abberline of course are themselves at odds with Sir Robert Anderson's supposed certainty that the Ripper was a low-class Jew, presumably Kosminski.
Chris
(Message edited by Chrisg on November 29, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 271
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 2:22 pm: |
|
It makes you think though about MJK , doesn't it ? If the Ripper was going to pick someone to kill , why pick her ? She didn't fit the pattern of the other victims ( old and haggard ' unfortunates ' ) , she lived in a courtyard where any of the residents could be about or pop around at any time of night , and she lived on a street where there were lodging houses and plenty of people could have seen a killer coming out from Miller's Court.
Harry , the man seen by Hutchinson might well have been in disguise , especially if he was the Ripper and he feared he had been recognised by Israel Schwartz. |
Andrew Spallek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 1001
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Simon,
You have a good point about the author or editor perhaps embellishing Abberline's account. I must admit that I had not considered that.
As to Abberline's fall in his garden preventing him from writing, I don't want to make too big a deal out of that but it doesn't sound right to me. Abberline was not elderly at this time (he lived another 20 years or so) so it is unlikely that he would have been seriously hurt by such a fall. Even if he had injured his writing hand he could have had someone else write it for him.
Andy S. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2655
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
Simon,
"Mary" may not have fitted the pattern of the other victims in all respects,but Polly Nicholls apparently looked much younger than she was and though Catherine Eddowes was such a waif,she didnt look her age either.
Noone quite knows who Mary Kelly was, so far ,or her exact age.
What they all did have in common was a very heavy reliance/addiction to drink. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 234
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 4:35 am: |
|
Bob,
In Hutchinson's account we have Kelly taking a man to her room,therefor that person does not have to bother about means of entry.She provides it.For uninvited entry,it is of course neccessary to use one of the methods you outline,but any of the three methods needs the killer to know precisely where and how the victim was situated that night.Would a stranger just have got lucky by trying doors?.
Simon,
In one respect Kelly fits the killers desires better than the others.As mutilation seems a principal driving force,the risk of direct interruption is obviously less in the confines of that room than on the street.So he would have more time at his disposal to carry out those mutilations.
We do know that there was no interruption,and that the mutilations were more extensive. |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 296
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Harry,
I agree. This was his perfect opportunity. There wasn't the perceived chance of interruption as in the other cases. I've contended that, had JTR the same amount of time and seclusion in the beginning,we wouldn't have had another 4 or 5 victims. That's why I don't look at him as a serial killer in the sense that he was compelled to keep killing. I think he wanted one victim only, to do with what he did to MJK, and in her, he finally found that victim. People dismiss Kelly so often because she was killed indoors, or because they have romanticized her into some innocent girl. The truth is, she was a whore like the others, but had enough success at it that she could live in a shoddy little apartment. But, what do I know?
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti č sempre incinta"
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
