A London surgeon's suicide

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

I have covered all the reasons why many of these should not be regarded as prime suspects in my book and it all boils down to evidence or the lack of it and how the public should interpret what these officers said back then, and in later years. There is no strength of evidence against these to consider, trust me on this I have been dealing with evidence for the past 40 years and still do to this day on a daily basis.

Another destruction of these opinions of the senior officers which you seem to hold in high esteem, and it is worth noting that all of these opinions on who it was come from senior officers. Whereas the men on the ground Abberline, Reid, Dew who would be more likely to know, say there was no evidence against anyone and the police had no clues. So that rules out what might have been in missing file or lost files etc. This excuse is just a cop out for not excepting what is fact.

Which ones are being honest. Reid, Abberline, Dew etc or The senior officers. Who would have done the leg work on these investigations, who would have interviewed any suspects, and who would know the real truth?

The average person in the street who has an interest in this case has been misled by those who keep referring to prime suspects, and trying to make a case agsint one or more. Anyone with at least one brain cell should know what it means for someone to be a suspect, but the average man in the street does not know what it takes to be prime suspect. Because in Ripperology at best we only have suspects who are referred to as prime suspects.

Every time I post something on a contentious issue you and the Swedish chef chip in and say that I am always wrong. Why is that its never you that is wrong.

I wish I was perfect

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

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

As long as it is a joint venture, Iīm fine with that.

[PaulB]

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 think I got it from "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...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..." And so on.

Now, I never said or so much as suggested that we can infer anything from whatever it was that was persuasive to those men. All I said was that.
something existed which persuaded them, therefore we cannot say that there was nothing, which is what you had said - "There is absolutely no evidence against the man" [Kosminski]. The evidence is in Macnaghten's words, that there were circs which made him a strong suspect.

What you say about the treaty, is what I have said about the many circs, namely that we know they existed but can't say what they were. Which is not the same as saying there was no treaty or no circs at all.

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...?

You don't seem to be making sense here. That Anderson and Macnaghten had a reason for their respective suspicions, is the same thing as saying that their conclusions were presumably based on some kind of evidence, which is what I have said.

"... it presumably existed, so it is wrong to say that no evidence exists....
[/I]
[B]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.

You said, "There is absolutely no evidence against the man" [Kosminski]. I said that Anderson and Macnaghten presumably based their conclusions on something, so presumably evidence existed. Unless you can produce a good argument that Anderson and Macnaghten based their conclusions on nothing at all, it is reasonable to assume that they based them on something.

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.

Okay

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.

I did not intend any animosity. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I do not think it is in the least treacherous to distinguish between the under-informed and the informed. If there are people "out there" who think there is substantial good "evidence" against PAV and Gull, then I am happy to hear it, and if their conclusions are persuasive to a lot of people, then clearly we'd have to move PAV and Gull up the suspects list. As it is, there aren't. And, of course, it should go without saying that the suspects list isn't a list of the suspects thought most likely to be the Ripper, but is a list of suspects prioritised for research.

[PaulB]

I have covered all the reasons why many of these should not be regarded as prime suspects in my book and it all boils down to evidence or the lack of it and how the public should interpret what these officers said back then, and in later years. There is no strength of evidence against these to consider, trust me on this I have been dealing with evidence for the past 40 years and still do to this day on a daily basis.

Another destruction of these opinions of the senior officers which you seem to hold in high esteem, and it is worth noting that all of these opinions on who it was come from senior officers. Whereas the men on the ground Abberline, Reid, Dew who would be more likely to know, say there was no evidence against anyone and the police had no clues. So that rules out what might have been in missing file or lost files etc. This excuse is just a cop out for not excepting what is fact.

Which ones are being honest. Reid, Abberline, Dew etc or The senior officers. Who would have done the leg work on these investigations, who would have interviewed any suspects, and who would know the real truth?

The average person in the street who has an interest in this case has been misled by those who keep referring to prime suspects, and trying to make a case agsint one or more. Anyone with at least one brain cell should know what it means for someone to be a suspect, but the average man in the street does not know what it takes to be prime suspect. Because in Ripperology at best we only have suspects who are referred to as prime suspects.

Every time I post something on a contentious issue you and the Swedish chef chip in and say that I am always wrong. Why is that its never you that is wrong.

I wish I was perfect

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
You wrote: "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."

Ripperologists have not used "prime suspect" to upgrade suspects. They used the expression to identify those suspects who seems more probable than others or who took priority for research - which in the long run amounted to the same thing. Your claim that Ripperologists purposefully used the term to elevate their favoured suspects is therefore flat out wrong, and your insistance on trying to argue that the police definition of the term "prime suspect" was what people meant was an utter waste of time and probably misleading to some people.

The rest of what you write is irrelevant. I haven't so much as remarked on any specific suspect, or what senior oficers thought, or what the men on the ground thought. It is about your assertion that Ripperologist have used a term to upgrade their favoured suspects.

As for what you have written, you have certainly outlined your beliefs in your books and as far as I can tell you haven't persuaded very many people, something you don't attribute to your arguments being weak and unacceptable, but to everyone being wedded to their own suspects, or being clique-driven to maintain he status quo. These and similar remarks have turned you into something of a joke on the message boards and social media. Even though you profess not to care about that, it pains me to see it and I regret how divisive it has helped to make the field in recent years. The trouble is, whilst I agree that the men on the ground disagree with the assertions of the senior officers, that doesn't prove that the senior officers were wrong. One should take on board the statements by the junior officers and I think everybody does that. It's possibly good that you remind them to do it, but otherwise you are teaching people to suck eggs. You behave as if nobody has ever thought of those things before, when, of course, the people here aren't stupid (actually, they are generally very intelligent and articulate) and have thought about them.

If you say something contentious then people will say you are wrong when you are wrong. As said, insisting that Ripperologists have misused "prime suspect" to elevate their suspects is crap and is based on your failure to realise that most people don't use such terminology in the same way as the police.

[Fisherman]

PaulB: I think I got it from "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...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..." And so on.

But that did not touch on the evidence from the late 1800:s, Paul - that is solely about the suggestion that we should regard the matter that Andersons and MacNaghtens words as some sort of guarantee that there MUST have been evidence, and that we therefore - as per your suggestion - should accept that there IS (not was) evidence visavi Kosminski and Druitt.
If you took that to mean that I was saying that there is not and never was any evidence, then you misunderstood me. There MAY well have been evidence, and it is not odd to work from the assumption that there was - but it must remain an assumption only.

Now, I never said or so much as suggested that we can infer anything from whatever it was that was persuasive to those men. All I said was that.
something existed which persuaded them, therefore we cannot say that there was nothing, which is what you had said - "There is absolutely no evidence against the man" [Kosminski].

But look at what happened to "was" and "is" here, Paul! You say that I have claimed that there "was" nothing, and you exemplify with how I say that there "is" nothing. Only the latter applies! There MAY have been something, but there IS nothing.
To me, these are radically different matters. And I must persist in saying that there IS no evidence today, regardless if there was yesterday. If we had absolute evidence that there was evidence (!) back then, we would still need to know itīs nature before we can could accuse Kosminski or Druitt of anything at all.

The evidence is in Macnaghten's words, that there were circs which made him a strong suspect.

Yep. But as always, the circs are not defined. So we cannot judge them. And much as it would perhaps be nice, I would not take MacNaghtens words for it. We may end up just about anywhere if we do. It can be a question of a relative saying that Druitt was probably the killer, and it can be a question of him having returned home with blood on his cricket bat. We cannot know, so we should not guess. Any quality rating is off.

What you say about the treaty, is what I have said about the many circs, namely that we know they existed but can't say what they were. Which is not the same as saying there was no treaty or no circs at all.

Correct. But as I said about the treaty, I was working from it being common knowledge that it had existed and been burnt - whereas we donīt know that there WERE circs. We only have MacNaghtens words for it (and to boot, MacNaghtens foremost champion on this site is of the meaning that he intentionally misled time and time again...)

You don't seem to be making sense here. That Anderson and Macnaghten had a reason for their respective suspicions, is the same thing as saying that their conclusions were presumably based on some kind of evidence, which is what I have said.

But we donīt KNOW that they had such reasons, Paul! We cannot buy into any security on potentially false premises.
Look, I agree that it is reasonable to say that the two "presumably based" their statements on some kind of evidence, but that is not the same as being able to conclude that there WAS evidence. The mere idea seems very hazardous to me.

You said, "There is absolutely no evidence against the man" [Kosminski]. I said that Anderson and Macnaghten presumably based their conclusions on something, so presumably evidence existed. Unless you can produce a good argument that Anderson and Macnaghten based their conclusions on nothing at all, it is reasonable to assume that they based them on something.

How do we weigh what is a "good argument"? Who gets the prerogative of interpretation?
It does not work that way. All we can say is that people sometimes base conclusions on loose sand or no sand at all, that is common knowledge. We also have the rather important fact that we are looking at TWO men here, claiming that TWO different men were the killer. They could not both have been, so we can rule out that BOTH were correct. We KNOW that at least one of them based his certainty/relative certainty on faulty premises, and that if anything should tell us that - police bigwig or not - you may be barking up the wrong tree anyway.


Okay

Okay!!

I did not intend any animosity. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

It did, rather. Which had me baffled, since it is something I am more inclined to couple to myself than to you. But I seem to remember that we have had a heated debate over these matters before, and that may have been at the backs of our heads, perhaps.

I do not think it is in the least treacherous to distinguish between the under-informed and the informed. If there are people "out there" who think there is substantial good "evidence" against PAV and Gull, then I am happy to hear it, and if their conclusions are persuasive to a lot of people, then clearly we'd have to move PAV and Gull up the suspects list. As it is, there aren't. And, of course, it should go without saying that the suspects list isn't a list of the suspects thought most likely to be the Ripper, but is a list of suspects prioritised for research.

Thatīs true enough! In a perfect world, the efforts will single out the right man anyway, but thereīs no guarantee. I am personally convinced that HWNMNBM (thatīs short for He Whose Name Must Not Be Mentioned, a term used much on the other site right now) was the killer, and I have no doubts at all that the Ripper and the Torso killer were one and the same.
If you could find time and courage (itīs a risky business, Ripperology) to comment on the latter somewhere in the future, I would be very interested. I sometimes find that people with a solid reputation like yourself seem to avoid some of the issues brought up on the threads, and I ask myself why.

Thanks for the debate so far!

[miss marple]

Harry D,
Thanks for getting back on topic. Its not a matter of labelling anyone who committed suicide within in a year of ripper murders as a suspect. I was actually looking at the number of suicides, in the 80s. There were hundreds usually caused by despair, poverty, thwarted love and the catch all 'balence of mind disturbed. None of which could remotely be connected with the ripper.
What struck me about William Evans Thomas was the number of coincidences. A young bachelor Doctor,living and working in the East End who suffered breakdowns after the death of Mary Kelly. And according to a Welsh TV programme [ this has to be verified] the Anglesea Archives have him returning home to Wales after each murder. He gets more depressed and eventually his Father brings him him back to Wales because of his depression and he kills himself with prussic acid.
There is a story there of some kind. Maybe the Rippers murders upset him.I will look into Welsh sources when I have some time, but anyone can research it.

Miss Marple