A London surgeon's suicide

[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.

[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

[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?

[Pcdunn]

Yes, Abby, DJA has a medical man.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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...

[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

[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