A London surgeon's suicide

[PaulB]

If you think the prime suspect today must be Kosminski, then we are not agreeing at all, Iīm afraid. There is absolutely no evidence against the man, and he cannot be proven to have had opportunity.

But letīs leave that for another thread, shall we?

It isn't really a matter of who you or anyone else favours, but who the majority of people, no matter how misguidedly, favour. That was Druitt from the 1960s through to the 1990s, then Kosminski. The evidence was whatever it was that convinced Macnaghten and Anderson respectively. We don't know what that evidence was, but it presumably existed, so it is wrong to say that no evidence exists against either man. If someone else is the majority favourite today, that's fine.

[Abby Normal]

If you think the prime suspect today must be Kosminski, then we are not agreeing at all, Iīm afraid. There is absolutely no evidence against the man, and he cannot be proven to have had opportunity.

But letīs leave that for another thread, shall we?

No worries. As I mentioned he's not my prime suspect. But it seems the majority of folks today and by police then felt he was.

[Fisherman]

Hi Paul and fish
I agree and based on both what the police officials said then (albeit slightly after the fact) and what most people Beleive today, as well as I can tell, then under these conditions one would have to say the prime ripper suspect was Kosminski.
He's not my favored suspect, as I place a significant weight on a Aberlines opinion, but he would be in my top 5 or 6 based on above.

Actually during the murders, at one point or another, I would say that Pizer, issenschmidt, and maybe Sadler where considered prime, or best suspects by the police.

If you think the prime suspect today must be Kosminski, then we are not agreeing at all, Iīm afraid. There is absolutely no evidence against the man, and he cannot be proven to have had opportunity.

But letīs leave that for another thread, shall we?

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: People hauled in as you suggest are suspects and are not regarded as prime suspects until there is sufficient evidence to regard them as a prime suspect. It is not unusual in todays world that when a murder occurs sometime up to 20 people are arrested on suspicion, that doesn't make them all prime suspects.

How could they be? Only ONE person can be the prime suspect, and in this case that would leave the other 19 suspects only.
Have you not understood what "prime" means yet? Have you ever heard the expression "primus inter pares"? No? It means "First among peers", and it applies totally to your twenty suspects musings - only one can be "primus", only one can be the prime suspect. The identity may change over time, but there are never two prime suspects simultaneously.
The prime suspect need NOT have evidence a plenty pointing to him - it suffices to have MORE than the others, or to behave in a way that is suspicious.

I live and work in the real world not in la la land like you

No, Trevor - the real world is laughing at you as we speak. The real world KNOWS the definition of prime suspect. I posted it in triple version earlier, but that did not mean that you got it, did it? No, you keep going on as if it never happened, and you have the nerve to claim that I am the one living in denial.

If it had not been so utterly farcical, it would have been tragic.

[Abby Normal]

One of the problems people who have or have had a job that has its own jargon is to assume that it has the same meaning in the outside world, which is why Trevor has a big difficulty with "prime suspect". For the police it has a specific meaning, but for everyone else it simply means "first" or "best", as you have succinctly pointed out. A "prime" cut of meat is the best cut, for example. So, to you and I, the "prime suspect" is the individual who is most widely accepted to be the best or most likely suspect (for whatever reason suspicion has fallen on him) of those who have been advanced. It's a pity Trevor can't understand this.

Hi Paul and fish
I agree and based on both what the police officials said then (albeit slightly after the fact) and what most people Beleive today, as well as I can tell, then under these conditions one would have to say the prime ripper suspect was Kosminski.
He's not my favored suspect, as I place a significant weight on a Aberlines opinion, but he would be in my top 5 or 6 based on above.

Actually during the murders, at one point or another, I would say that Pizer, issenschmidt, and maybe Sadler where considered prime, or best suspects by the police.

[PaulB]

You cant have two different meanings one for historians and one for the police either a person is a prime suspect by reason of the evidence stacked against him or he is a person of interest because there is no evidence pointing to him. YOu cant make someone a prime suspect without evidence, and as I have said before opinions are not evidence.

You keep saying I dont understand, out of the two of us having regard to my experience compared to yours in these matters I would suggest I have the edge. You and the deluded Scandinavian need reality checks and to change you way of thinking. This is why this mystery is bogged down with so called prime suspects. Time to revise the suspect lists.

Since when has a murder suspect been compared to a cut of beef. What a ridiculous comparison.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

On the contrary, words can have special meanings in specific professions, as you prove by your insistance on the definition used by the police.

I am not claiming a different meaning for historians. I am stating that the world and its mother uses the word "prime" to mean "fist" or "best" and I have given one example of the word's use in common parlance, "prime cut" to denote the best cut of meat.

Opinion may not constitute evidence as far as a police investigation is concerned, but it does constitute evidence when trying to understand what happened in the past. Very often the only "evidence" one possesses is "opinion".

I don't claim to have more experience than you when it comes to investigating crime, but my understanding of how to investigate the past leaves you on the starting block. But whilst you always try to drag things down to a personal level, I am simply pointing out that your insistance on applying police terminology makes you in error. When "prime suspect" was first used in terms of the Ripper suspects, I doubt that the police meaning and interpretation of the words were known and understood, assuming they even existed in general use in this country - early uses date from the 1970s-1980s.

[Trevor Marriott]

On the whole, I agree. But I know for a fact that policemen do not need to have a lot of evidence knit to a person to regard him as a prime suspect, as I think you may agree with. Many times, a person who is hauled in for having been in close contact with a murder victim or for having been found close to a murder spot, will become a prime suspect on account of contradicting himself repeatedly and giving a very nervous impression. Such a matter can well turn you into the prime suspect of an investigation, although there is no other evidence involved.
How this evades a former police officer is quite beyond me. Itīs surreal to me. You may well have part of the explanation, but it takes more to make sense. Then again, Trevor and sense are often two different matters...

People hauled in as you suggest are suspects and are not regarded as prime suspects until there is sufficient evidence to regard them as a prime suspect. It is not unusual in todays world that when a murder occurs sometime up to 20 people are arrested on suspicion, that doesn't make them all prime suspects.

I live and work in the real world not in la la land like you

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

One of the problems people who have or have had a job that has its own jargon is to assume that it has the same meaning in the outside world, which is why Trevor has a big difficulty with "prime suspect". For the police it has a specific meaning, but for everyone else it simply means "first" or "best", as you have succinctly pointed out. A "prime" cut of meat is the best cut, for example. So, to you and I, the "prime suspect" is the individual who is most widely accepted to be the best or most likely suspect (for whatever reason suspicion has fallen on him) of those who have been advanced. It's a pity Trevor can't understand this.

You cant have two different meanings one for historians and one for the police either a person is a prime suspect by reason of the evidence stacked against him or he is a person of interest because there is no evidence pointing to him. YOu cant make someone a prime suspect without evidence, and as I have said before opinions are not evidence.

You keep saying I dont understand, out of the two of us having regard to my experience compared to yours in these matters I would suggest I have the edge. You and the deluded Scandinavian need reality checks and to change you way of thinking. This is why this mystery is bogged down with so called prime suspects. Time to revise the suspect lists.

Since when has a murder suspect been compared to a cut of beef. What a ridiculous comparison.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

One of the problems people who have or have had a job that has its own jargon is to assume that it has the same meaning in the outside world, which is why Trevor has a big difficulty with "prime suspect". For the police it has a specific meaning, but for everyone else it simply means "first" or "best", as you have succinctly pointed out. A "prime" cut of meat is the best cut, for example. So, to you and I, the "prime suspect" is the individual who is most widely accepted to be the best or most likely suspect (for whatever reason suspicion has fallen on him) of those who have been advanced. It's a pity Trevor can't understand this.

On the whole, I agree. But I know for a fact that policemen do not need to have a lot of evidence knit to a person to regard him as a prime suspect, as I think you may agree with. Many times, a person who is hauled in for having been in close contact with a murder victim or for having been found close to a murder spot, will become a prime suspect on account of contradicting himself repeatedly and giving a very nervous impression. Such a matter can well turn you into the prime suspect of an investigation, although there is no other evidence involved.
How this evades a former police officer is quite beyond me. Itīs surreal to me. You may well have part of the explanation, but it takes more to make sense. Then again, Trevor and sense are often two different matters...

[PaulB]

I really should not have to lecture you on what a prime suspect is, but it seems I have to!

"Prime", Trevor, do you know where the expression comes from? It is originally latin, and means "first". Like in, say, "primary". Or "primadonna" - the leading lady, that is to say the one who comes first.

So the prime suspect is the one the police think is first in line to being the culprit. Normally, their view is evidencebased, but not necessarily. They may regard a person a prime suspect on other grounds - a gut feeling, arrogance from the suspect, nervousness on his behalf etcetera.

Your question about which ones were prime suspects during the Ripper investigation is therefore not a correct question, since you add "by reason of evidence against them".

We know that Issenschmid was the prime suspect for some time. And we know that there was never any hard evidence against him, it was all circumstantial. Thatīs how it works. The police very clearly stated that Issenschmid was their favoured culprit, that is to say the prime suspect. He was the best one at that stage, on very little evidence which was all circumstantial, he was first in line as far as the beliefs of the victorian police are concerned.

Anderson regarded Kosminski as HIS prime suspect, Druitt was seemingly favoured by MacNaghten and Cox chose the man he had under surveillance as the prime suspect. To what extent this was evidencebased is written in the stars. My conviction is that neither suspect had anything but purely circumstantial evidence pointing against him, but I donīt know. I DO know, however, that it does not necessarily take much to get appointed prime suspect.

I hope this makes you understand a concept you have apparently worked with for decades without grasping. How do you think it works? 80 per cent proven = prime suspect, 60 per cent proven = suspect, 20 per cent proven = person of interest? Please let us know the varying degrees of evidence required for the different statuses, and we can all adjust accordingly.

One of the problems people who have or have had a job that has its own jargon is to assume that it has the same meaning in the outside world, which is why Trevor has a big difficulty with "prime suspect". For the police it has a specific meaning, but for everyone else it simply means "first" or "best", as you have succinctly pointed out. A "prime" cut of meat is the best cut, for example. So, to you and I, the "prime suspect" is the individual who is most widely accepted to be the best or most likely suspect (for whatever reason suspicion has fallen on him) of those who have been advanced. It's a pity Trevor can't understand this.

[Trevor Marriott]

I really should not have to lecture you on what a prime suspect is, but it seems I have to!

"Prime", Trevor, do you know where the expression comes from? It is originally latin, and means "first". Like in, say, "primary". Or "primadonna" - the leading lady, that is to say the one who comes first.

So the prime suspect is the one the police think is first in line to being the culprit. Normally, their view is evidencebased, but not necessarily. They may regard a person a prime suspect on other grounds - a gut feeling, arrogance from the suspect, nervousness on his behalf etcetera.

You realyy dont have a clue about how police investigations work do you

Your question about which ones were prime suspects during the Ripper investigation is therefore not a correct question, since you add "by reason of evidence against them".

We know that Issenschmid was the prime suspect for some time. And we know that there was never any hard evidence against him, it was all circumstantial. Thatīs how it works. The police very clearly stated that Issenschmid was their favoured culprit, that is to say the prime suspect. He was the best one at that stage, on very little evidence which was all circumstantial, he was first in line as far as the beliefs of the victorian police are concerned.

Anderson regarded Kosminski as HIS prime suspect, Druitt was seemingly favoured by MacNaghten and Cox chose the man he had under surveillance as the prime suspect. To what extent this was evidencebased is written in the stars. My conviction is that neither suspect had anything but purely circumstantial evidence pointing against him, but I donīt know. I DO know, however, that it does not necessarily take much to get appointed prime suspect.

I hope this makes you understand a concept you have apparently worked with for decades without grasping. How do you think it works? 80 per cent proven = prime suspect, 60 per cent proven = suspect, 20 per cent proven = person of interest? Please let us know the varying degrees of evidence required for the different statuses, and we can all adjust accordingly.

The suspects you refer to are nothing more than persons of interest or at best likely suspects based mainly on opinions they are not prime suspects. Even MM refers to them as likely suspects and his evidence is unsafe.

You cant grab the concept, or you dont want to, for example if the police receive information from a member of the public that they believe a person to be responsible for a crime with no corroboration simply a belief. That person is a person of interest they do not become a prime suspect. The same applies if a police man has a suspicion that someone has committed a crime with no supporting evidence they would perhaps be regarded as a likely suspect.

If an ageing police officer in later years such as Abberline suggests Chapman could have been the ripper with no evidence to support that at the time other than the fact that Chapam was convicted of murder what does that make him A likely suspect not a prime suspect.

For someone to be regarded as a prime suspect there has to be some primary evidence linking him to the crime. Evidence that may fall short of being enough to charge, opinions and beliefs are not sufficient. No one has ever been convicted on a belief or an uncorroborated opinion.

Based on your percentages you show me where there is 80% evidential proof of the guilt of anyone you believe to be a prime suspect.

Anderson does not regard Kosminski as his suspect in fact it has never been established who the real Kosminski was. He certainly wasnt Aaron. Andersons book is as reliable as the MM.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GUT]

Its all getting a bit technical and away from the thread.
Surely all ripperologists can do at this distance in time is speculate on persons of interest, that is the fun of it. Also because police had a suspect in 1888/9 that does not mean they were anymore informed than people speculating today. More information is availiable today than was in 1888. There was no hard evidence then and there is no hard evidence now.

Miss Marple

That bit I can't agree with, most of the police files are missing, so to say more information is available today than the police had in 1888 is at best speculation, at worst plain wrong.

[Fisherman]

miss marple: Its all getting a bit technical and away from the thread.

To an extent, yes. But a number of interesting sidelines have come up.

Surely all ripperologists can do at this distance in time is speculate on persons of interest, that is the fun of it.

It is less fun when you are accused of lacking ethics when you do so, however. But maybe that problem is overwith now when you have seen "the fun" it brings to accuse somebody of murder most foul?

Also because police had a suspect in 1888/9 that does not mean they were anymore informed than people speculating today. More information is availiable today than was in 1888. There was no hard evidence then and there is no hard evidence now.

You are correct on how we know more about many things than they did back then. However, they had the edge on us on other matters - for example, a lot more knowledge would have been available about a man like Kosminski than we have today. So itīs a mixture of blessings and curses.

As for hard evidence, the closest we come to it is the blood pouring out of Nicholsīneck many minutes after she was cut.

[miss marple]

Its all getting a bit technical and away from the thread.
Surely all ripperologists can do at this distance in time is speculate on persons of interest, that is the fun of it. Also because police had a suspect in 1888/9 that does not mean they were anymore informed than people speculating today. More information is availiable today than was in 1888. There was no hard evidence then and there is no hard evidence now.

Miss Marple

[Fisherman]

The term prime suspect was only introduced in 1930. Since then Ripperolgists have used this term to upgrade those who were described as likely suspects and persons of interest, despite there being no hard evidence for them to be upgraded.

Suspect- A person believed to have committed a crime with little or known proof. This is more appropriate than prime suspect. but simple suspects do not sell books or generate documentaries. or films do they?

Perhaps you would care to tell which of the prime suspects were investigated by the police and fall into the prime suspect category by reason of evidence against them?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I really should not have to lecture you on what a prime suspect is, but it seems I have to!

"Prime", Trevor, do you know where the expression comes from? It is originally latin, and means "first". Like in, say, "primary". Or "primadonna" - the leading lady, that is to say the one who comes first.

So the prime suspect is the one the police think is first in line to being the culprit. Normally, their view is evidencebased, but not necessarily. They may regard a person a prime suspect on other grounds - a gut feeling, arrogance from the suspect, nervousness on his behalf etcetera.

Your question about which ones were prime suspects during the Ripper investigation is therefore not a correct question, since you add "by reason of evidence against them".

We know that Issenschmid was the prime suspect for some time. And we know that there was never any hard evidence against him, it was all circumstantial. Thatīs how it works. The police very clearly stated that Issenschmid was their favoured culprit, that is to say the prime suspect. He was the best one at that stage, on very little evidence which was all circumstantial, he was first in line as far as the beliefs of the victorian police are concerned.

Anderson regarded Kosminski as HIS prime suspect, Druitt was seemingly favoured by MacNaghten and Cox chose the man he had under surveillance as the prime suspect. To what extent this was evidencebased is written in the stars. My conviction is that neither suspect had anything but purely circumstantial evidence pointing against him, but I donīt know. I DO know, however, that it does not necessarily take much to get appointed prime suspect.

I hope this makes you understand a concept you have apparently worked with for decades without grasping. How do you think it works? 80 per cent proven = prime suspect, 60 per cent proven = suspect, 20 per cent proven = person of interest? Please let us know the varying degrees of evidence required for the different statuses, and we can all adjust accordingly.