A London surgeon's suicide

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott:

Dont take this personally but it is common practice among Ripperologists to call someone a suspect when the reality is that there is nothing to show that they were ever under suspicion.

The fact that a person was not under suspicion in 1888 does not mean that he cannot be the prime suspect today, Trevor. It all depends on the information available, and we may well have information that the victorian police either could not access or declined/missed to access.

Contemporary named suspects usually emanate from someones wild speculative un corroborated theory or belief.

I take it that when you say "usually", you have realized that there are exceptions. Happy days!

In a police investigation there are three types of suspects

1. A person of interest
2. A Likely suspect
3. A Prime suspect

Is that not TWO types of suspects?

How many of the named prime suspects in Ripperology actually fit into the prime suspect category, by reason of good hard evidence to support that status as a prime suspect?

One. And please keep in mind that "prime suspect" does not point to a degree of evidence, it points to having more evidence than all the other suspects. So you can become the prime suspect on little evidence, just as you can do so on much evidence.

Let me help, evidence of opinions by ageing police officers in later years on their own does not make a person a prime suspect, and ripperology is filled with such opinions.

Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. If there was only Kosminski and Lewis Carroll, then Kosminski would be the prime suspect.

In fact I struggle to actually find any specific hard evidence to support any prime suspect. Lots of evidence to point to persons of interest but thats a long way from being a prime suspect.

Once again, "prime suspect" is not about a level of evidence - it is a weighing against the rest of the suspects. Here is the definition from a net site:
A prime suspect is the person law enforcement officers believe most probably committed a crime under investigation.

And hereīs another:
(law) A person who is considered by the law enforcement agency investigating a crime to be the most likely suspect.

And a third:
The main person being investigated by those trying to solve a crime.

Amazingly, you seem to be an ex-policeman who has not understood what a prime suspect is. Itīs either that, or you are having us all on, Trevor.
Of course, many a prime suspect have had a lot pointing against him/her - but it is not a rule.

Without prime suspects where would ripperology be?

Weīll never know, will we?

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?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

Dont take this personally but it is common practice among Ripperologists to call someone a suspect when the reality is that there is nothing to show that they were ever under suspicion.

The fact that a person was not under suspicion in 1888 does not mean that he cannot be the prime suspect today, Trevor. It all depends on the information available, and we may well have information that the victorian police either could not access or declined/missed to access.

Contemporary named suspects usually emanate from someones wild speculative un corroborated theory or belief.

I take it that when you say "usually", you have realized that there are exceptions. Happy days!

In a police investigation there are three types of suspects

1. A person of interest
2. A Likely suspect
3. A Prime suspect

Is that not TWO types of suspects?

How many of the named prime suspects in Ripperology actually fit into the prime suspect category, by reason of good hard evidence to support that status as a prime suspect?

One. And please keep in mind that "prime suspect" does not point to a degree of evidence, it points to having more evidence than all the other suspects. So you can become the prime suspect on little evidence, just as you can do so on much evidence.

Let me help, evidence of opinions by ageing police officers in later years on their own does not make a person a prime suspect, and ripperology is filled with such opinions.

Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. If there was only Kosminski and Lewis Carroll, then Kosminski would be the prime suspect.

In fact I struggle to actually find any specific hard evidence to support any prime suspect. Lots of evidence to point to persons of interest but thats a long way from being a prime suspect.

Once again, "prime suspect" is not about a level of evidence - it is a weighing against the rest of the suspects. Here is the definition from a net site:
A prime suspect is the person law enforcement officers believe most probably committed a crime under investigation.

And hereīs another:
(law) A person who is considered by the law enforcement agency investigating a crime to be the most likely suspect.

And a third:
The main person being investigated by those trying to solve a crime.

Amazingly, you seem to be an ex-policeman who has not understood what a prime suspect is. Itīs either that, or you are having us all on, Trevor.
Of course, many a prime suspect have had a lot pointing against him/her - but it is not a rule.

Without prime suspects where would ripperology be?

Weīll never know, will we?

[Pcdunn]

Yes, Abby, DJA has a medical man.

[Abby Normal]

Well I Beleive this is the third doctor that has recently been put out there.


Who were the other two? I believe poster DJA has one of them?

[Trevor Marriott]

Fisherman,
He is not my suspect, I did not discover him, some work has been done, and I think it is easier to eliminate suspects than find them guilty.
Miss Marple

Do you know what is required evidence wise to make someone a suspect ?

Dont take this personally but it is common practice among Ripperologists to call someone a suspect when the reality is that there is nothing to show that they were ever under suspicion.

Contemporary named suspects usually emanate from someones wild speculative un corroborated theory or belief.

In a police investigation there are three types of suspects

1. A person of interest
2. A Likely suspect
3. A Prime suspect

How many of the named prime suspects in Ripperology actually fit into the prime suspect category, by reason of good hard evidence to support that status as a prime suspect?

Let me help, evidence of opinions by ageing police officers in later years on their own does not make a person a prime suspect, and ripperology is filled with such opinions.

In fact I struggle to actually find any specific hard evidence to support any prime suspect. Lots of evidence to point to persons of interest but thats a long way from being a prime suspect.

Without prime suspects where would ripperology be?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MsWeatherwax]

I love Casebook, it has everything.
He seems to have been dismissed as a suspect because he committed suicide seven months after MK. Yet nothing about him has been investigated. What's the rule book that states you can only be a suicide ripper if you kill yourself immediatly after MK? i am not saying he is the ripper but if a someone had committed a serious of murders, then stopped, was perhaps driven to do so, then it prayed on his mind causing depression, suicide could take place months later.
He was 33 and it do'es mention in one of the newspapers that he was a Surgeon at the Metropolition which had been based in Commercial st till 86. If he was at the hospital then he would be familier with area and probably treated prostitutes He may have gone into general practise later.

I am merely speculating until more is discovered about his career but I think he is too interesting to ignore, He needs to be fully eliminated or not.


Miss Marple

There is no rule book, you're quite right. Even today, families, friends and colleagues hide or try to disguise the severity of mental illness of their kin - there's no reason why this Doctor didn't have a deterioration in his mental health following the MJK murder that his family and friends helped to cover up. I agree that's he's worth investigating, if only because at this stage everything has to be worth looking at.

[John G]

Concussion...?

I was hoping it added up to more.

Yes, John, we will discuss this matter further. i am in the process of gathering material, and I am ridiculously optimistic about being able to make the connection in the future. Itīs a truly fantastic story, once the puzzle is laid. But for another thread and another day!

A well-spotted grammatical error/ typo! Would be really interested in reading your conclusions, Fish. I find it a fascinating subject, even though it can lead, on occasion, to shall we say a fairly lively debate!

[Fisherman]

We really must have another discussion, Fish, about JtR and the Torso perpetrator(s). I don't agree with your concussion, but I must admit you present a very detailed, and well-though out, argument.

Concussion...?

I was hoping it added up to more.

Yes, John, we will discuss this matter further. i am in the process of gathering material, and I am ridiculously optimistic about being able to make the connection in the future. Itīs a truly fantastic story, once the puzzle is laid. But for another thread and another day!

[John G]

Well, well, miss Marple - you have found yourself a suspect! And not only that - he is supposedly a strong candidate too!

This would of course be an excellent opportunity for me to remind you of how extremely unforgiving you have been against me for pointing a finger at Lechmere - you found it revolting and deeply unethical, as I recall things.

And now here you are, naming a man as a strong candidate, even asking us "whatīs not to like"?

I will not seize the opportunity to mock you, though. You shall have my view, and I will ask you a few pertinent questions which I hope you will answer.

I am confident that the Ripper and the torso killer are one and the same. Therefore, the Kelly murder, removed seven months in time, is not the one I would look upon as the act that made Thomas do away with himself, but instead Elizabeth Jackson, in the very month of June 1889!

However, the Pinchin Street torso could not have been Thomas. And it is very unlikely that the 1873 torso of Battersea was his - he was 17 at the time. And I firmly believe these murders belong to the same man.

The one thing that looks most interesting to me - who think we may rule out that the killer had surgical expertise - is the returning to Wales after each killing. What I would like to know is that if it occurred on each of the four Ripper killing nights, or if it was more sporadic. How close in time to the killings was it? Did he otherwise not visit his father regularly?

And would it not be compatible with a frail pshyche that was giving way to seek refuge at his fatherīs place? We know that he chose that venue for his death, so it would seem he may have sought his fathers home out to soothe his nerves, something that ultimately failed. The two spent the sonīs last night in life together in the same sleeping room, apparently, which makes it sound terribly tragic to me.

That is my view. I am glad - as always - when somebody with competence and enthusiasm sets out to look deeper into a character I myself would not have the time to research. Welcome to the weird world of suspectology!

We really must have another discussion, Fish, about JtR and the Torso perpetrator(s). I don't agree with your concussion, but I must admit you present a very detailed, and well-though out, argument.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman do you have to drag Lechmere into everything?

Nobody else will do it for me.

I am merely pointing out that the fact that you accused me of being unethical for pointing to Lechmere as a very good Ripper suspect is something that finds an interesting backdrop in how you now point to Thomas as a very good Ripper suspect, even asking "whatīs not to like".

You see, the fact that you were not the first one to notice him changes nothing in this respect - it is not as if that means that you suddenly have not brought him to the fore.

So far from wishing to discuss Lechmere, I am commenting on moral. Or more exactly double moral.

Itīs a little something to store in my back pocket until the next time the discussion is brought up again, thatīs all.

Back to Thomas now.

[Pcdunn]

Hi, Miss Marple.

I'm intrigued by the part of the article that stated his father "felt it best to watch" his son, which may suggest they knew something of his depression-- perhaps he'd attempted suicide before?

[miss marple]

In the 1881 Census William Evans Thomas M. D was living in 20 Spital St as medical assistant to Ebenezer Moore, General Practitioner.

He died a bachelor, killing himself on the 12th of June 1889 leaving Ģ228.1.2d in his will. Probate was granted to his father next of kin, Henry Parry Thomas. His address 190 Green St Bethnal Green.

Miss Marple

I Have not had time to check out the Anglesea archives. Fisherman do you have to drag Lechmere into everything?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
He is not my suspect, I did not discover him, some work has been done, and I think it is easier to eliminate suspects than find them guilty. I think he is a strong suspect because of the reasons stated in my previous post. He is worth a look when you consider the pages of drivel trying to convict post impressionist artists and the royal family .

Thomas is at least in with a shout and worthy of deeper examination.

Anybody in Wales fancy looking at the Anglesea archives?


Miss Marple

In that respect, Lechmere is not "my" suspect either - I was not the first one to point to him. And I think HE is a very strong suspect, just like you do about Thomas.
You see, we are not different in this respect. So you cannot be absolved from having pointed a finger at a man with no evidence pointing to him, as far as I can tell - but I am not criticizing you for it.
Indeed, if I could eliminate Lechmere, I would. But I canīt. Nobody else can eliminate him either. That, however, is nothing that should make us think he must be guilty - many suspects cannot be eliminated, so I have to disagree with you to a very significant extent about the simplicity of eliminating suspects.

Do you have any answers to the questions I put to you regarding Thomas? Or are you awaiting information from the Anglesea archives?

[miss marple]

Fisherman,
He is not my suspect, I did not discover him, some work has been done, and I think it is easier to eliminate suspects than find them guilty. I think he is a strong suspect because of the reasons stated in my previous post. He is worth a look when you consider the pages of drivel trying to convict post impressionist artists and the royal family .

Thomas is at least in with a shout and worthy of deeper examination.

Anybody in Wales fancy looking at the Anglesea archives?


Miss Marple

[Simon Wood]

Hi Trevor,

Get real.

Since when has it been necessary to have evidence with which to brand someone as a Ripper suspect?

Regards,

Simon