Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Farquharson named and another suspect detailed - Feb 1892

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

  • #46
    the perils of attribution

    I agree that the 1892 report from from The Western Mail of February 26, 1892 is severely garbled and appears to be mentioning two different individuals, both of them possibly referring to Le Grand.
    I am in a position to give, on the authority of a Scotland Yard detective, a somewhat remarkable piece of information respecting the hunt of the English police after the perpetrator of the terrible series of East End murders which convulsed the whole country with horror a while ago. We have heard nothing of “Jack the Ripper” for some time past-over a year-and his murderous operations have not been renewed.
    The reason of this is that the police have, for many months past, been perfectly certain that they have discovered the man. The chain of evidence has been completed with the exception of a single link. That link they have been making unavailing endeavours to supply. The suspected criminal, till within a month at any rate, has been shadowed night and day, awake and asleep, by Scotland Yard detectives. Everything points to the conclusion that he has himself been perfectly aware of this vigilance on the part of the police, and it is, no doubt, from this cause, and this alone, that the Whitechapel murders have ceased.

    In the Examiner #2 article this newspaper report is attributed as discovered by Mike Covell and identified by Howard Brown. However, I suspect that the newspaper report in question was discovered in reality by Mark Ripper, and that the OTHER newspaper report, from April 2, 1891 in The Hull and North Lincolnshire Times, mentioning Belgian nationality and a sentence for blackmailing, was the discovery by Mike Covell identified by How, as it makes much more sense that Mike Covell would have gone through a newspaper published in Hull. ;-) Thus, can it be that the Examiner #2 article got its quotes mixed? Which is not the end of the world, but cracks me up somehow.
    The 1892 newspaper report is also the one quoted by Simon Wood (in his post #1195 in the casebook thread Plausibility of Kozminsky). And I most obviously need to read Simon's article in Rip 125, if he further discusses it there.
    Best regards,
    Maria

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Maria Birbili View Post
      I agree that the 1892 report from from The Western Mail of February 26, 1892 is severely garbled and appears to be mentioning two different individuals, both of them possibly referring to Le Grand.
      I am in a position to give, on the authority of a Scotland Yard detective, a somewhat remarkable piece of information respecting the hunt of the English police after the perpetrator of the terrible series of East End murders which convulsed the whole country with horror a while ago. We have heard nothing of “Jack the Ripper” for some time past-over a year-and his murderous operations have not been renewed.
      The reason of this is that the police have, for many months past, been perfectly certain that they have discovered the man. The chain of evidence has been completed with the exception of a single link. That link they have been making unavailing endeavours to supply. The suspected criminal, till within a month at any rate, has been shadowed night and day, awake and asleep, by Scotland Yard detectives. Everything points to the conclusion that he has himself been perfectly aware of this vigilance on the part of the police, and it is, no doubt, from this cause, and this alone, that the Whitechapel murders have ceased.

      In the Examiner #2 article this newspaper report is attributed as discovered by Mike Covell and identified by Howard Brown. However, I suspect that the newspaper report in question was discovered in reality by Mark Ripper, and that the OTHER newspaper report, from April 2, 1891 in The Hull and North Lincolnshire Times, mentioning Belgian nationality and a sentence for blackmailing, was the discovery by Mike Covell identified by How, as it makes much more sense that Mike Covell would have gone through a newspaper published in Hull. ;-) Thus, can it be that the Examiner #2 article got its quotes mixed? Which is not the end of the world, but cracks me up somehow.
      The 1892 newspaper report is also the one quoted by Simon Wood (in his post #1195 in the casebook thread Plausibility of Kozminsky. And I most obviously need to read Simon's article in Rip 125, if he further discusses it there.
      I think we have kind of agreed that 3 individuals are being mentioned!!
      The first is Farquharson's suspect, Druitt. Then there's Scotland Yard detective's suspect (whoever he is and may even be Smith as the details are totally different to the other March 1892 Le Grand as a suspect reports!!) and then the letter writer who has been pointed out is there as an example of someone not brought to trial for his crimes but known.
      There is no connection ( as Cris said) between the Ripper suspect as per the SY detective and the letter writer, other than he is being used as an example.

      Comment


      • #48
        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.
        I just wanted to bump Cris' post as people sometimes don't read threads through and follow a discussion properly.
        I think this is an excellent explanation of what the newspaper article is about. The article is in no way garbled, it's completely straightforward and means exactly what it says as Cris has explained.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Maria Birbili View Post
          In the Examiner #2 article this newspaper report is attributed as discovered by Mike Covell and identified by Howard Brown. However, I suspect that the newspaper report in question was discovered in reality by Mark Ripper, and that the OTHER newspaper report, from April 2, 1891 in The Hull and North Lincolnshire Times, mentioning Belgian nationality and a sentence for blackmailing, was the discovery by Mike Covell identified by How, as it makes much more sense that Mike Covell would have gone through a newspaper published in Hull. ;-) Thus, can it be that the Examiner #2 article got its quotes mixed? Which is not the end of the world, but cracks me up somehow.
          The 1892 newspaper report is also the one quoted by Simon Wood (in his post #1195 in the casebook thread Plausibility of Kozminsky). And I most obviously need to read Simon's article in Rip 125, if he further discusses it there.
          Mike did find and post the April 1892 Hull newspaper first. It was then discovered this first appeared in the Belfast newsletter at the end of March. Mike then also posted the Western Mail (and Gloucester Citizen) article that appears on this thread from Feb 1892.
          They all appear in this thread:
          http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....land+prison%22
          Mark Ripper was responsible for finding a different western Mail article from Feb 1891 which also claimed the ripper was currently serving a prison sentence of 15 years.

          Comment


          • #50
            Thanks so much Debs. I'll look up the thread
            (http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....land+prison%22) and read the reports again later on, right now I'm trying to see if I can buy a new laptop today (vs. tomorrow).
            Best regards,
            Maria

            Comment


            • #51
              Hi Debs. That's all pretty evident from just reading the article itself. No explanation needed. By 'garbled' I meant poorly written. However, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the reporter isn't intending connection between the blackmailer and the Ripper suspect. This seems more or less like the 'Ripper Jack's Pard' article. Because the reporters were not allowed to mention that Le Grand was being investigated for the Ripper murders, they instead occassionally said it without saying it, and this article is a great example of that.

              Yours truly,

              Tom Wescott

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                Hi Debs. That's all pretty evident from just reading the article itself. No explanation needed. By 'garbled' I meant poorly written. However, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the reporter isn't intending connection between the blackmailer and the Ripper suspect. This seems more or less like the 'Ripper Jack's Pard' article. Because the reporters were not allowed to mention that Le Grand was being investigated for the Ripper murders, they instead occassionally said it without saying it, and this article is a great example of that.

                Yours truly,

                Tom Wescott
                Tom, I was addressing Maria who claimed it was severely garbled.

                The reporter is intending connection in so far as the letter writer paragraph is being used as an example of a criminal known to police but not brought to justice, and due to the police vigilance on him, unable to carry on with his criminal activities in the same area and driven to move on, exactly like the Ripper suspect watched day and night who knew he was being watched so no more murders were committed. But they are two separate cases and two separate men.

                The letter writing case fits no specifics of what we know of le Grand anyway (apart from letter writing) and neither does the suspect watched day and night up until a month ago come to that matter. There is no doubt the April 1892 reports that the Ripper was now in Portland Prison is Le Grand, his details fit those given, but I'd be wary of making the same claim about this report being about LG too until it's known for definite there was no other susepct in 1891/2.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                  ...I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the reporter isn't intending connection between the blackmailer and the Ripper suspect. This seems more or less like the 'Ripper Jack's Pard' article. Because the reporters were not allowed to mention that Le Grand was being investigated for the Ripper murders, they instead occassionally said it without saying it, and this article is a great example of that.

                  Yours truly,

                  Tom Wescott
                  The article doesn't mention a blackmailer, it says someone making a living fraudulently from writing begging letters. Begging letter writers appeal to the charitable nature of the people they write to with a sob story, or claim to be collecting for an organisation.
                  There are a couple of examples of well known begging letter writers in the press, one targetting MPs.

                  If the press weren't allowed to give details that would allow for Le Grand being identified as someone being investigated for the Ripper crimes and so cloaked him in incorrect details as you say...how come the following month they come plain out and say that the Ripper was a man currently serving 20 years penal servitude in Portland Prison for threatening elderly ladies and that he was convicted a few months previously at the end of 1891?...not much disguising going on there! LOL.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    So, who was being watched from Feb 1891 until Jan 1892?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Debs:

                      To me, that's the most important part of Chris's find....
                      Not the identity of the person, but that they were still conducting surveillance on someone at that time.

                      Good question by the way, Debs.
                      To Join JTR Forums :
                      Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        I think the identity and quantity of these suspects is very important, How.
                        What was happening in early 1892 that made one or more Scotland Yard detectives leak information?

                        In Feb 1892 (as per the Gloucester Citizen and Western Mail)a detective is telling us that the Ripper didn't kill himself as Farquharson claimed the year before but is known to police and basically quit ripping and hasn't done anything since the last murder, presumably Coles, because he knew he was being tailed and was suspected. Then the story goes on to say that's it's perfectly OK that the criminal could have given up for this reason and not have been brought to justice and tells about the begging letter writer who also got off scot free, simply because he knew the police were on to him and quit.

                        A month later we are being told by a Scotland yard detective that the Ripper has been under lock and key at Portland Prison (and is serving 20 years for threatening elderly women) since late 1891.

                        In a dissertation on casebook, Andrew Spalleck discusses this 1892 Western Mail newspaper article (which is the same as the Gloucester Citizen one posted by Chris) naming Farquaharson and has this in the footnotes:

                        'Tracking "Jack the Ripper,''' The Western Mail, 26 February 1892. According to Stewart P Evans, the 'tailed suspect' was likely Thomas Sadler.

                        Could the police really have still suspected Sadler a year later in 1892 even after he was found not guilty? And felt it necessary to follow him around night and day?

                        Personally I wonder about the quality of these Scotland Yard 'leaks' of information. Do they really come from anyone in the know after real investigations at Scotland Yard or are they just personal opinions and pet theories being aired by lowlier detective staff?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Could they be a bit of both, Debs?

                          Since (collectively at least) they never had any hard and fast evidence against any one individual, and there was also the distinct possibility of more than one murderer still at large, the police must have had their eye on a few suspects in case the worst happened and there was a further ripperesque murder after Coles.

                          They also knew that any one-time suspect now caged in an asylum could never be proved a killer in a court of law, but were they perhaps worried about the possibility of an escape, or a deadly attack on a staff member, if their suspicions about a particular inmate were correct?

                          I don't know how secure these places were, or if the police were ever involved when it got to that stage.

                          Very interesting thread - thanks for everybody's input!

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Debs:

                            I agree that the identity and quantity of suspects as you mentioned are very important. I should have added that this surveillance was in operation after the Coles murder...which is what makes it more interesting to me personally, I suppose.
                            But you are correct, of course.

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

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                              I think the identity and quantity of these suspects is very important, How. What was happening in early 1892 that made one or more Scotland Yard detectives leak information? {...}
                              Personally I wonder about the quality of these Scotland Yard 'leaks' of information. Do they really come from anyone in the know after real investigations at Scotland Yard or are they just personal opinions and pet theories being aired by lowlier detective staff?
                              I agree with Caz that it could be both, leaks in the investigation or simple pet theories. I guess we can cross-reference it with people's memoirs, but then again, would police leak such info as pertaining to the identity of the Ripper in their own memoirs? I very much doubt it.

                              I agree that it's a bit of a long stretch that the police might have still suspected Sadler a year later, in 1892, even after he was found not guilty, finding it necessary to follow him around night and day. In this instance I strongly disagree with SPE.
                              Best regards,
                              Maria

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Thanks, Caz, How and Maria for the replies. I was more thinking about these two 1892 'leaks' in particular and the motivation behind them? It's almost as if there was some sort of panic after Coles' murder?

                                Maria, I'm not be too sure about Sadler.In 1891/2 his wife complained several times to police about his behaviour and the threats he had made on her life, so, perhaps they were watching him for that reason?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X