A London surgeon's suicide

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Whether there are two or twenty persons arrested it doesn't follow that any of them will be regarded as prime suspects. All may be quickly eliminated in that case would you then say because they were arrested they were prime suspects no you wouldnt.

They were arrested on suspicion so they were simply suspects. The arrest on suspicion process has not changed since Victorian times. Back then people were arrested on suspicion which amounted to nothing more than fitting the description of the killer, or getting drunk and confessing to being the ripper. Today people are arrested on suspicion, and in reality at times there is very little suspicion to actually justify an arrest.

After arrest the police investigation goes to a different level that is trying to gather evidence against one or more suspects. Depending on what was gathered then a suspect might be regarded as a prime suspect.

None of the main Ripper suspects were not even arrested on suspicion for the crimes. So how can you say they are prime suspects?

Paul Begg and others state that files have been destroyed or gone missing so we dont know the full facts. The reality is that had there been any suspicions about them and they were regarded as genuine prime suspects at the time, they would have been arrested but there is no evidence of that.

Its easy for a police officer after the event to come out and say "I thought it was him" but without evidence that is a worthless statement as are the opinions of those officers who say just that in later years, who you and others want to believe. Yet you disregard the other officers who suggest that what has been said is a load of rubbish.

The reality is that in my opinion the police in 1888 did not have clue as to the identity of the killer or killers of these women.

Abberline
Reid
Major Smith
Monro
Anderson (pre book release)

The real world knows the definition of a prime suspect but you and at least one other on here dont.

and where are your facts to show that there was at least 80% evidence against some of these prime ripper suspects as you suggest? Lets see if you are as good at evaluating evidence as you try to tell us?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

PaulB: It isn't really a matter of who you or anyone else favours, but who the majority of people, no matter how misguidedly, favour.

If you are speaking of who is the prime suspect today in a popular sense, then maybe we need to get the duke of Clarence and William Gull on the table again. They were always on the common manīs top of the list.
And if it isnīt about who I favour, then it isnīt about who the Ripperologists as a community favour either.
Itīs a perilous thing to listen to the voice of the people...

That was Druitt from the 1960s through to the 1990s, then Kosminski.

In Ripperologist circuits, yes. In the mind of the so called common people, no. Of course, it is interesting to see who the majority of a group of people with a special interest in the case favour, and of course, it should be noted. But thatīs about as far as I would go.

The evidence was whatever it was that convinced Macnaghten and Anderson respectively.

Halt, please! We should be very careful when speaking about evidence in these two cases, as if we could conclude that it was there. We donīt even know if Anderson has his identification bit correct, and we certainly donīt know what it was that otherwise made the two police bigwigs interested in these characters, other than in a secondary capacity; "They said it was probably him, so now I say that it was probably him", sort of.

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.

We would be speaking of ghost evidence in such a case - evidence we conclude is there and that must be accepted and believed in. It touches on religion and bearded men resting on clouds, Paul. You cannot say "It existed, so it exists". Look at the Roman empire.
I totally disagree. I think we can emphatically say that no matter if there ever was once evidence, it is no longer there.
Itīs comparable to a treaty that is burnt before anybody gets a chance to see it - we all know that a treaty has been written, but we have no idea what it ruled. We cannot from such a treaty infer that A must apply because that would have been in the treaty, or that B rules the day, because THAT must have been in the treaty. Actually, the burnt treaty must have the upper hand in a comparison since we can be sure that there WAS once a treaty. The same dows not apply to the so called evidence. We cannot conclude that it was once there, all we can conclude is that Anderson and MacNaghten respectively either felt that there was a REASON (evidence or something else) to suspect these men, or they knowingly misled posterity. Those, to my mind, are the only two alternatives. And they include the possibility that there was lots of evidence that would have convicted Kosminski or Druitt. Or both, what do I know...?

There someone else is the majority favourite today, that's fine.

In a sense. But I donīt think it is particularly fine if the grounds are bad, and if there are better grounds to suspect somebody else. Then again, such things are more often than not matters of subjective choice. So letīs not get too far down that particular avenue...

[Fisherman]

The real world knows the definition of a prime suspect but you and at least one other on here dont.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Donīt forget the ones who define the term in dictionaries and encyclopedias, Trevor - they seem to be disagreeing with you too. So itīs me, Paul, Abby and the dictionaries and encyclopedias.

[PaulB]

PaulB: It isn't really a matter of who you or anyone else favours, but who the majority of people, no matter how misguidedly, favour.

If you are speaking of who is the prime suspect today in a popular sense, then maybe we need to get the duke of Clarence and William Gull on the table again. They were always on the common manīs top of the list.
And if it isnīt about who I favour, then it isnīt about who the Ripperologists as a community favour either.
Itīs a perilous thing to listen to the voice of the people...

That was Druitt from the 1960s through to the 1990s, then Kosminski.

In Ripperologist circuits, yes. In the mind of the so called common people, no. Of course, it is interesting to see who the majority of a group of people with a special interest in the case favour, and of course, it should be noted. But thatīs about as far as I would go.

The evidence was whatever it was that convinced Macnaghten and Anderson respectively.

Halt, please! We should be very careful when speaking about evidence in these two cases, as if we could conclude that it was there. We donīt even know if Anderson has his identification bit correct, and we certainly donīt know what it was that otherwise made the two police bigwigs interested in these characters, other than in a secondary capacity; "They said it was probably him, so now I say that it was probably him", sort of.

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.

We would be speaking of ghost evidence in such a case - evidence we conclude is there and that must be accepted and believed in. It touches on religion and bearded men resting on clouds, Paul. You cannot say "It existed, so it exists". Look at the Roman empire.
I totally disagree. I think we can emphatically say that no matter if there ever was once evidence, it is no longer there.
Itīs comparable to a treaty that is burnt before anybody gets a chance to see it - we all know that a treaty has been written, but we have no idea what it ruled. We cannot from such a treaty infer that A must apply because that would have been in the treaty, or that B rules the day, because THAT must have been in the treaty. Actually, the burnt treaty must have the upper hand in a comparison since we can be sure that there WAS once a treaty. The same dows not apply to the so called evidence. We cannot conclude that it was once there, all we can conclude is that Anderson and MacNaghten respectively either felt that there was a REASON (evidence or something else) to suspect these men, or they knowingly misled posterity. Those, to my mind, are the only two alternatives. And they include the possibility that there was lots of evidence that would have convicted Kosminski or Druitt. Or both, what do I know...?

There someone else is the majority favourite today, that's fine.

In a sense. But I donīt think it is particularly fine if the grounds are bad, and if there are better grounds to suspect somebody else. Then again, such things are more often than not matters of subjective choice. So letīs not get too far down that particular avenue...

I think you are working very hard and unfortunately losing your way. It's rubbish to say that as something no longer exists, it never existed, which is effectively what you are proclaiming. But, aside from that, I am taking about the majority of reasonably informed commentators, the sort of people who know enough to discount the likes of PAV and Gull. But, listen, if you want to misunderstand my words, intentionally or otherwise, feel free.

[PaulB]

Whether there are two or twenty persons arrested it doesn't follow that any of them will be regarded as prime suspects. All may be quickly eliminated in that case would you then say because they were arrested they were prime suspects no you wouldnt.

They were arrested on suspicion so they were simply suspects. The arrest on suspicion process has not changed since Victorian times. Back then people were arrested on suspicion which amounted to nothing more than fitting the description of the killer, or getting drunk and confessing to being the ripper. Today people are arrested on suspicion, and in reality at times there is very little suspicion to actually justify an arrest.

After arrest the police investigation goes to a different level that is trying to gather evidence against one or more suspects. Depending on what was gathered then a suspect might be regarded as a prime suspect.

None of the main Ripper suspects were not even arrested on suspicion for the crimes. So how can you say they are prime suspects?

Paul Begg and others state that files have been destroyed or gone missing so we dont know the full facts. The reality is that had there been any suspicions about them and they were regarded as genuine prime suspects at the time, they would have been arrested but there is no evidence of that.

Its easy for a police officer after the event to come out and say "I thought it was him" but without evidence that is a worthless statement as are the opinions of those officers who say just that in later years, who you and others want to believe. Yet you disregard the other officers who suggest that what has been said is a load of rubbish.

The reality is that in my opinion the police in 1888 did not have clue as to the identity of the killer or killers of these women.

Abberline
Reid
Major Smith
Monro
Anderson (pre book release)

The real world knows the definition of a prime suspect but you and at least one other on here dont.

and where are your facts to show that there was at least 80% evidence against some of these prime ripper suspects as you suggest? Lets see if you are as good at evaluating evidence as you try to tell us?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, this is tiresome. Try to get a handle on this: how the police defined a suspect or define one today is wholly irrelevant. Please don't keep telling us what this or that word means to a policeman! It doesn't have any bearing at all on what "suspect" means to the average man in the street.

Everyone against whom there are grounds for suspicion is a suspect. Nobody, except possibly a policeman, says, "Oh, he's a person of interest." And as far as most people are concerned, a "prime suspect" is the person against whom the grounds for suspicion are considered strongest. It's really very simple. Now, how these terms are used by the man in the street might need to be revised and brought into line with what they mean to the police, but that hasn't happened yet. Like the man in the street, Ripperologists know what they mean by and what is meant by "suspect" and "prime suspect". It's only you who, as usual, is out-of-step.

It may indeed be easy for a policeman to say after the event that he believed so-and-so to have been guilty of the crime, and there are many reasons why a policeman would do that, and among those reasons is the possibility that they genuinely believed that person was guilty. Macnaghten says Kosminski was a "suspect" and that there "were many circs which made him a strong 'suspect'". It's your job to find out what those circs were and whether he was right to call him a strong suspect.

[Fisherman]

PaulB: I think you are working very hard and unfortunately losing your way.

Oh, I would not fear either matter.

It's rubbish to say that as something no longer exists, it never existed, which is effectively what you are proclaiming.

Thatīs very wrong, Paul. I am not in any way saying that there was never any evidence. And I am decidedly not saying that "as something no longer exists, it has never existed". Where did you get that from? Once again, look at the Roman empire.

I narrowed it down the only way I feel it can be narrowed down. To reiterate:
"...all we can conclude is that Anderson and MacNaghten respectively either felt that there was a REASON (evidence or something else) to suspect these men, or they knowingly misled posterity. Those, to my mind, are the only two alternatives. And they include the possibility that there was lots of evidence that would have convicted Kosminski."


I did this since you wrote, and I quote, "... it presumably existed, so it is wrong to say that no evidence exists....

To me, that is a very odd assertion; since we PRESUME it existed, we may conclude it exists. I hope that I did not misunderstand you, but that was what you wrote.

Anyway, please donīt claim that I am saying that an absense of evidence today means that it has never existed! The world is filled to the brim with lost evidence, I think we are very aware of that, both of us.

But, aside from that, I am taking about the majority of reasonably informed commentators, the sort of people who know enough to discount the likes of PAV and Gull. But, listen, if you want to misunderstand my words, intentionally or otherwise, feel free.

Why would I want to do that? I have no reason whatsoever. I happen to think that it is a treacherous thing to do to try and isolate "the majority of reasonably informed commentators, the sort of people who know enough to discount the likes of PAV and Gull", but now that you make this distinction, wobbly as it is, I am perfectly fine with that. And I agree that to Ripperologists Kosminski has followed in Druitts footprints when it comes to being the overall prime suspect.

Being slightly baffled by the misrepresentation of my view and the degree of animosity in your post, I hope that settles things.

[Fisherman]

It's your job to find out what those circs were and whether he was right to call him a strong suspect.

Surely, there MUST be somebody else...?

[PaulB]

Surely, there MUST be somebody else...?

It's the job of everybody with an interest, including Trevor.

[Harry D]

Semantics aside, we can all agree that 'suspect' is a much abused word on this site.

Good luck with your findings, MM. Get back to us if you're able to dig up anything juicy about this chap. However, I do think it's somewhat presumptuous to be labelling any Tom, Dick or Willy who happened to perish within a year of MJK's death as a suspect.