Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Farquharson named and another suspect detailed - Feb 1892

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Another source

    Hi all,
    I think this article also refers to Chris's find.
    Attached Files
    Dave
    "From Hull, Hell and Halifax, Good Lord deliver us."

    Comment


    • #32
      Thanks, Dave.
      Would the London correspondent belong to the Gloucester Citizen or the Western Mail I wonder?

      Comment


      • #33
        Hi guys
        Having carefully reread the article I am certain, as How and Debs and Chris G say, it is referring to two distinct individuals.
        1) The Ripper suspect who has been subject to close surveillance
        2) The letter writer
        The linking sentence is "It is quite common, indeed, for a criminal to get off in this manner." The phrase "in this manner" referred to the contention that the murders ceased because the killer was so constrained by the efforts and vigilance of the police. The subsequent passage about the letter writer is simply another example of this kind of outcome to a case - "he finally left London because his business was too much hampered by the police."
        I personally think it is imprecise or ambiguous writing or, just possibly, sensationalism in that the author or editor was maybe trying to link the two cases in the public mind. Or maybe it was just me misreading and the old grey cells dying off!!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Chris Scott View Post
          Hi guys
          Having carefully reread the article I am certain, as How and Debs and Chris G say, it is referring to two distinct individuals.
          1) The Ripper suspect who has been subject to close surveillance
          2) The letter writer
          The linking sentence is "It is quite common, indeed, for a criminal to get off in this manner." The phrase "in this manner" referred to the contention that the murders ceased because the killer was so constrained by the efforts and vigilance of the police. The subsequent passage about the letter writer is simply another example of this kind of outcome to a case - "he finally left London because his business was too much hampered by the police."
          I personally think it is imprecise or ambiguous writing or, just possibly, sensationalism in that the author or editor was maybe trying to link the two cases in the public mind. Or maybe it was just me misreading and the old grey cells dying off!!
          Chris, I'm confusing the issue here I think, sorry.
          Let me see if I can explain things better:

          You are correct about the letter writer and the suspect watched day and night; What I meant when I asked if anyone else read this as being about two different individuals is in the discussion of those Ripper suspects?

          I read it as the reporter is saying that the theory and suspect just recently put forward by Farquaharson is now sort of 'overridden' by details given to the reporter by a Scotland Yard detective who claims the Ripper gave up after finding himself being watched day and night by Scotland Yard and that this suspect was the Ripper and not Farquaharson's man (who killed himself).
          Scott seems to be saying that both Farquaharson's suspect and the Detective's suspect are Newland Smith, so is he reading it that both suspects are the same man except the reporter is making it known that the suspect didn't kill himself as Farquaharson theorised but is still alive... but is essentially the same suspect.

          ...does that make sense?

          Comment


          • #35
            Hi Debs
            Yes, I see your interpretation. The way I now read it is that
            1) The article refers to two different individuals
            2) Only the first is seen by the writer as a suspect for the murders themselves. The second is only involved in the case by virtue of his letter writing
            All the best
            Chris

            Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
            Chris, I'm confusing the issue here I think, sorry.
            Let me see if I can explain things better:

            You are correct about the letter writer and the suspect watched day and night; What I meant when I asked if anyone else read this as being about two different individuals is in the discussion of those Ripper suspects?

            I read it as the reporter is saying that the theory and suspect just recently put forward by Farquaharson is now sort of 'overridden' by details given to the reporter by a Scotland Yard detective who claims the Ripper gave up after finding himself being watched day and night by Scotland Yard and that this suspect was the Ripper and not Farquaharson's man (who killed himself).
            Scott seems to be saying that both Farquaharson's suspect and the Detective's suspect are Newland Smith, so is he reading it that both suspects are the same man except the reporter is making it known that the suspect didn't kill himself as Farquaharson theorised but is still alive... but is essentially the same suspect.

            ...does that make sense?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Chris Scott View Post
              Hi Debs
              Yes, I see your interpretation. The way I now read it is that
              1) The article refers to two different individuals
              2) Only the first is seen by the writer as a suspect for the murders themselves. The second is only involved in the case by virtue of his letter writing
              All the best
              Chris
              Thanks for trying , Chris. That isn't really what I meant either.
              The letter writer doesn't figure in what I'm talking about, forget him for a minute; I'm interested in Farquaharson's suspect and the man 'watched day and night by Scotland Yard Detectives'

              Are we being told in the article that they are the same man, and Farquaharson's idea that the suspect killed himself just being corrected?
              Or are we being told that Farquaharson's suspect is now 'outranked' by an even newer suspect who is still alive and gave up killing after finding he was being watched by police?

              Comment


              • #37
                We are being told why the murders ceased and why the 'real' Jack the Ripper has not been prosecuted. And according to this reporter's detective informant, it was not because the murderer had killed himself - as our chirpy MP had suggested sometime back - but because the police had maintained a vigilant watch on the man and had thwarted any attempts by the killer to resume his activities as a result.

                In other words, the suicide story had no merit because this new revelation straight from 'someone in the know' explains what has happened to the murderer and why he hasn't killed again.

                None of the people mentioned - the suicide, the man being watched, or the letter writer - are connected to each other except by example of what 'really' happened to the killer and the difficulty in bringing him to justice.
                Best Wishes,
                Cris Malone
                ______________________________________________
                "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Cris Malone View Post
                  We are being told why the murders ceased and why the 'real' Jack the Ripper has not been prosecuted. And according to this reporter's detective informant, it was not because the murderer had killed himself - as our chirpy MP had suggested sometime back - but because the police had maintained a vigilant watch on the man and had thwarted any attempts by the killer to resume his activities as a result.

                  In other words, the suicide story had no merit because this new revelation straight from 'someone in the know' explains what has happened to the murderer and why he hasn't killed again.

                  None of the people mentioned - the suicide, the man being watched, or the letter writer - are connected to each other except by example of what 'really' happened to the killer and the difficulty in bringing him to justice.
                  Thanks, Cris. That is how I read it too. That's why I am confused as to why Scott seemed to be saying in other posts that Farquaharson's suspect was Newland Smith but in his post on this thread he thinks the detective's suspect 'watched night and day' was also Newland Smith.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Sorry Debs - now I see what you mean! DOH! I'm a bit slow today:-)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Hi all. I believe this article was originally discovered by Mark Ripper. It was discussed in my 2010 Le Grand essay and most recently by Simon Wood in Rip 125. The article is clearly very garbled and confused, but comparison to other newspaper articles of around the same time, which make reference to Le Grand as both a Ripper suspect AND blackmailer, make it clear it's referring to Le Grand, who was known to stalk Parliament members. The error made by the reporter is obviously that Le Grand fled the country. The truth is that he ALMOST fled the country, having been captured with French and American currency on him and stating he was on his way to New York.

                      Yours truly,

                      Tom Wescott

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                        Hi all. I believe this article was originally discovered by Mark Ripper. It was discussed in my 2010 Le Grand essay and most recently by Simon Wood in Rip 125. The article is clearly very garbled and confused, but comparison to other newspaper articles of around the same time, which make reference to Le Grand as both a Ripper suspect AND blackmailer, make it clear it's referring to Le Grand, who was known to stalk Parliament members. The error made by the reporter is obviously that Le Grand fled the country. The truth is that he ALMOST fled the country, having been captured with French and American currency on him and stating he was on his way to New York.

                        Yours truly,

                        Tom Wescott
                        Hi Tom,
                        Mark Ripper discovered the Feb 1891 Western Mail article that claimed the Ripper had been sentenced to 15 years, this while Le Grand was serving a sentence from 89 that was originally 5 years.
                        This is also different to the other 1892 article originally found by Mike Covell in that the blackmailing isn't mentioned, the sentence or nationality isn't mentioned and we have the new detail that the suspect was shadowed 'day and night'
                        It's either a garbled version ( how many 1892 suspects were Scotland Yard detectives pushing in early 1892?) or it does refer to someone else.

                        The letter writer fled the country and has been discussed in other posts, is not connected to Farquaharson's suspect (which was obviously Druitt) or the detective's suspect. It's something different altogether, as has been confirmed by a few people reading the article now.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Chris Scott View Post
                          Sorry Debs - now I see what you mean! DOH! I'm a bit slow today:-)
                          No worries Chris. You're allowed, you're still in recovery mode like me.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Hi Debs. So it was you who discovered the article? I recall I used it in my 2010 essay. Regardless of who it's referring to, the reporter did a very poor job of making himself understood. Or, to be fair to the reporter, I wonder if it's not a case of the editor shaving off a couple of paragraphs here and there to make the print fit the page.

                            Yours truly,

                            Tom Wescott

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Debs:

                              Good work on post # 41...for pointing out the differences between articles.

                              XXX
                              To Join JTR Forums :
                              Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                                Hi Debs. So it was you who discovered the article? I recall I used it in my 2010 essay. Regardless of who it's referring to, the reporter did a very poor job of making himself understood. Or, to be fair to the reporter, I wonder if it's not a case of the editor shaving off a couple of paragraphs here and there to make the print fit the page.

                                Yours truly,

                                Tom Wescott
                                I don't remember who found it! You do mention it in your Le Grand essay. Jonathon used it in his, and Simon recently posted it and sparked more discussion.
                                The reporter seems to say (to me), that Farquaharson' suspect is no longer a valid one as Scotland Yard themselves have released details of another suspect, watched day and night, who quit when he knew he was being watched.
                                This doesn't apply to Le Grand, but yet, how many detectives at Scotland Yard, which is one point in common, were releasing details of a suspect in early 1892? And why?
                                There were either two legitimate alternative to Farquaharson's suspect (Druitt)still being considered in early 1892, one being Le Grand as we know, and Scotland Yard said 'spread the word' ...or there's a mix up. But that doesn't seem right when not one element of the Le Grand story is incorporated, just an entirely new and unrelated event.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X