What Would It Take To Convince You?

[MsWeatherwax]

Following on from a discussion I had with a colleague a couple of weeks ago, what evidence would you need to be convinced that 'Suspect X' was indeed the person (or persons) known as Jack The Ripper?

As a follow on question, do any of you believe that any of the missing material/files/evidence is ever likely to resurface?

[Pandora]

For me, if a small tin was found hidden for 130 years in the home of someone connected to the murders (suspect, witness, reporter etc) that contained the shrivelled up remains of human organs, that matched those removed by JtR, along with say newspaper clippings or something similar, then that would be circumstantial evidence enough for me. A couple of knives with human blood would also help. Especially if any DNA was discoverable from that blood, and possible to be linked to any of the victims ancestors.

That said, I would consider it a minor miracle if during a house renovation, someone actually found such a tin – but it’s not completely outside the realms of possibility.

[Timasina]

Given the size of the material held at the National Archives I wouldn't be surprised if there are documents incorrectly/not catalogued that relate to JTR.

I have carried out research at the NA for my own family, admittingly before the 19c, and have found things that are not indexed on a catalogue search.

How one would go about finding any missing entries?......I wouldn't even hazard a guess

Timas

[GUT]

Following on from a discussion I had with a colleague a couple of weeks ago, what evidence would you need to be convinced that 'Suspect X' was indeed the person (or persons) known as Jack The Ripper?

As a follow on question, do any of you believe that any of the missing material/files/evidence is ever likely to resurface?

I'm not sure what would persuade me and guess it would depend on a it of factors

Will more material surface, let's just say I wouldnt be suprised.

[drstrange169]

It would be a lot easier to think of evidence that would convince that someone was NOT jtr.

[Trevor Marriott]

It would be a lot easier to think of evidence that would convince that someone was NOT jtr.

No need to think of evidence. There is already in the public domain a wealth of evidence which rules out many of those on the long list of suspects. Its a pity many researchers wont accept that fact when peddling the same old ones continually.

Time and time again we see the word suspect used. But in reality the majority are not suspects, at `best` they are nothing more than persons of interest.and there is a big difference.

For information purposes the term `prime suspect` was not first used until the mid 1900`s. That being said why are many of the persons that in my opinion are nothing more than persons of interest being categorised as prime suspects?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I diary written by the ripper where he admits.....oops

Maybe a genuine letter from one senior police officer to another where they actually say who the ripper was and give the reasons why it was important that they kept it quiet (protecting Druitt family for eg.)
At this distance of time I think that we have to admit the overwhelming likelihood that the rippers identity won't be revealed. This leaves us with the task of evaluating the 'mentioned' suspects almost by a process of 'box-ticking.' Some believe that they already know who he was and that's fine by me as long as they are honest enough to say that they can't be 100% sure.

[Trevor Marriott]

I diary written by the ripper where he admits.....oops

Maybe a genuine letter from one senior police officer to another where they actually say who the ripper was and give the reasons why it was important that they kept it quiet (protecting Druitt family for eg.).

That is never going to happen because the police did not have any clues as to the real identity of the killer or killers. A number of senior police officers are quoted as confirming this fact years later, in either their memoirs or in newspaper interviews.

Unless of course if you believe that Anderson was honest, and could not possible tell lies, and that Donald Swanson penned all of the Swanson marginalia. Or that all the missing files and records did state who the killer or killers were.

Since studying all the above, I have started to beleive in fairy stories

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

For me we would need a series of communications between senior officers, medical staff or the Government in which all sides accepted x was the killer and the reasons for this view.
Even that would probably be open to argument And debate.

Steve

[Elamarna]

That is never going to happen because the police did not have any clues as to the real identity of the killer or killers. A number of senior police officers are quoted as confirming this fact years later, in either their memoirs or in newspaper interviews.

Unless of course if you believe that Anderson was honest, and could not possible tell lies, and that Donald Swanson penned all of the Swanson marginalia. Or that all the missing files and records did state who the killer or killers were.

Since studying all the above, I have started to beleive in fairy stories

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
Your view and you are entitled to it. However because some officers said they had no idea, it does not mean that was the actual position.
There were more than Anderson and Swanson who said the killer was probably known. Even if they did not supply a name.


Steve

[Elamarna]

That is never going to happen because the police did not have any clues as to the real identity of the killer or killers. A number of senior police officers are quoted as confirming this fact years later, in either their memoirs or in newspaper interviews.

Unless of course if you believe that Anderson was honest, and could not possible tell lies, and that Donald Swanson penned all of the Swanson marginalia. Or that all the missing files and records did state who the killer or killers were.

Since studying all the above, I have started to beleive in fairy stories

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I do however agree that nothing is likely to turn up Trevor


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
Your view and you are entitled to it. However because some officers said they had no idea, it does not mean that was the actual position.
There were more than Anderson and Swanson who said the killer was probably known. Even if they did not supply a name.
Steve

Steve
Its not my view it is fact. You show me where there is any concrete evidence which would have led to anyone in 1888 being able to name what we now term as a prime suspect. I have no doubt names of possible offenders were being banded about then just as they are today without any foundation.

But the police officers in the more senior ranks are the ones who said they didnt know, and some even went as far as rejecting what the likes of Anderson had said in public.

If you rule out Andersons material in his book regarding the ID issue, it then raises as big question mark over the marginalia, because other than Anderson and Swanson no one else in the wide wide world of Ripperology can corroborate it

Do you not think that if any officers of senior rank had have known who this killer or killers were they would have gone public with the fact either at the time or in later years. I quote examples of the rejection theory

CHIEF INSP ABBERLINE – MARCH 1903
“We have never believed all those stories about Jack the Ripper being dead, or that he was a lunatic, or anything of that kind”

“Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."

James Monro following his resignation as Metropolitan Police Commissioner November 1890 wrote :

“The police had nothing positive in the way of clues about the identity of the Ripper”

Det Insp Reid February 4th 1912

“I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal ' Jack the Ripper, always without success. It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr. Anderson., Dr. Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur. Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong. I have answered many of them in print, and would only add here that I was on the scene and ought to know.”

Now lets throw one more in for good measures from none other than Anderson himself who up until his book was published had been telling the world and his brother that the police did not know the identity of the killer or killers, but lo and behold that changed in 1910 when his book was published

What does he say !

“But that five successive murders should have been committed, without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime.”

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MsWeatherwax]

For me, if a small tin was found hidden for 130 years in the home of someone connected to the murders (suspect, witness, reporter etc) that contained the shrivelled up remains of human organs, that matched those removed by JtR, along with say newspaper clippings or something similar, then that would be circumstantial evidence enough for me. A couple of knives with human blood would also help. Especially if any DNA was discoverable from that blood, and possible to be linked to any of the victims ancestors.

That said, I would consider it a minor miracle if during a house renovation, someone actually found such a tin – but it’s not completely outside the realms of possibility.

It's funny you were the first to respond, and with this answer. This is pretty much the conversation that I had with my colleague - the possibility of a 'Tutenkhamun's Tomb' of evidence. The possibility is, of course, so remote it probably can't even be calculated but nevertheless it's an interesting notion.

I do wonder what happened to the organs, and to his knives. In all probability, they've been thrown away down the years by somebody who had no idea what their significance was (assuming he kept the organs preserved in some way).

The only thing that I can say for sure is that anything written would be highly unlikely to convince me.

[Trevor Marriott]

I do however agree that nothing is likely to turn up Trevor

Steve

If there was they would have turned up before now. But even the pilfered documents from the archives which are still in the hands of ripperologists may turn up in later years, but there is no smoking guns contained in them.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Steve
Its not my view it is fact. You show me where there is any concrete evidence which would have led to anyone in 1888 being able to name what we now term as a prime suspect. I have no doubt names of possible offenders were being banded about then just as they are today without any foundation.

Trevor I am not saying that I responded to your:

"because the police did not have any clues as to the real identity of the killer or killers"

And I believe that to be incorrect.
They may not have been right but a number did believe they had a very possible person.

But the police officers in the more senior ranks are the ones who said they didnt know, and some even went as far as rejecting what the likes of Anderson had said in public.

If you rule out Andersons material in his book regarding the ID issue, it then raises as big question mark over the marginalia, because other than Anderson and Swanson no one else in the wide wide world of Ripperology can corroborate it

The big word there is IF Trevor.

Do you not think that if any officers of senior rank had have known who this killer or killers were they would have gone public with the fact either at the time or in later years. I quote examples of the rejection theory

CHIEF INSP ABBERLINE – MARCH 1903
“We have never believed all those stories about Jack the Ripper being dead, or that he was a lunatic, or anything of that kind”

“Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."

James Monro following his resignation as Metropolitan Police Commissioner November 1890 wrote :

“The police had nothing positive in the way of clues about the identity of the Ripper”

Det Insp Reid February 4th 1912

“I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal ' Jack the Ripper, always without success. It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr. Anderson., Dr. Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur. Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong. I have answered many of them in print, and would only add here that I was on the scene and ought to know.”

Now lets throw one more in for good measures from none other than Anderson himself who up until his book was published had been telling the world and his brother that the police did not know the identity of the killer or killers, but lo and behold that changed in 1910 when his book was published

What does he say !

“But that five successive murders should have been committed, without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Anderson obviously changed his mind from that quote. And of course one needs to read it in the full context of the full text it is from.

And the rest while impressive are personal opinions, the same as Anderson and Swanson.

To get back to your first comment, it is not actual fact is it? It's your intreptation of the facts.
Those you quote are indeed factual, however we could quote some who disagree with those views could we not?
Some said they had no idea and some said they did.

Ultimately it makes no difference as no such documents are likely to have survived even if they did once exist.


Steve