How do Suspects compare?

[Ben]

Hutchinson, by coming forward like he did made himself automatically suspect #1.

Absolutely no way, Jon.

There was no precedent in 1888 for killers injecting themselves into police investigations as witnesses, and the police would not for one moment have countenanced the possibility of the most wanted man in London waltzing into the police station requesting an interview, and yet this is precisely what subsequent serial killers have done. We have actual evidence that Barnett was considered a suspect, but nothing in Hutchinson's case. Emanuel Violenia, like Hutchinson, provided a discredited "witness" statement to the effect that he was the last person to see Chapman alive on the night of her death. Is there any evidence that he was considered a possible murderer? No. Or what about Matthew Packer in the Stride case?

You can believe what you want, but Hutchinson was not investigated as a suspect.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

You mean by 'contemporary' strictly contemporary I take it?

Yes, like in Druitt's case there would need to be a suspicion before his suicide, not people making suggestive comments after-the-fact.

Why's that? I don't know much about criminal profiling, so I'm curious.

Just accept that as my bias I have discussed it before but the short story is I don't accept the methodology can be successfully applied to a different era, to a killer or killers, who had an unknown number of victims.

Yes, I totally agree with you here. It's very hard to see the picture though sometimes, isn't it?

Very!

There is no evidence that Hutchinson was "investigated in connection with the murders", Jon.

Hi, what took you so long!

We do have some examples, but mostly no evidence that the police investigated any witness statements given voluntarily, even though it was their job to do so. But do it they would.
No-one volunteering information that they were the last person to see the victim alive will go uninvestigated, of that we can be sure.
Hutchinson, by coming forward like he did made himself automatically suspect #1.

Believe what you want Ben, but the police knew their job and we would have to come up with the most bizarre set of circumstances if we try to suggest that neither Barnett nor Hutchinson were not investigated.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

And I would also include anyone investigated in connection with the murders, like Barnett and Hutchinson.

There is no evidence that Hutchinson was "investigated in connection with the murders", Jon.

[Sally]

Hi Wickerman

I wouldn't include Druitt, nor Kosminski. Yes they did live in the vicinity at the time of the murders (Kosminski is assumed to have), but they are not contemporary suspects.
Tumblety even though in London about the time was not suspected either. If I recall correctly, the first insinuation we have came from his own mouth. Tumblety was a 'wannabe', he only claimed to have been suspected, it is not established that this was true.
Chapman (Klosowski), so far as we know only Abberline reflected back that he might have been invloved. Once again, no contemporary mention of him in the case.

You mean by 'contemporary' strictly contemporary I take it? So all the above are suspects suggested after the fact? I suppose then you might argue for the benefit of hindsight.

The only true contemporary suspects were all cleared, like Pizer, Sadler. So thats a deadend from our point of view. And I would also include anyone investigated in connection with the murders, like Barnett and Hutchinson.

So you think that if there had been any suspicion attached to them the police would have picked it up at the time?

We should not draw conclusions from conjecture, but that is commonly done here. Conjecture/speculation is to open up questions both for and against a mans culpability. Only if those questions can be answered do we have cause to draw conclusions from those answers.

Yes, I agree.

Yes, but we start by compiling the theory from the available facts. That might sound like I'm being pedantic, but I just want to head off the idea that the theory comes first, it doesn't. The theory is what we are left with once we have determined all the facts.

No, I didn't mean that the theory comes first. I agree that that theory always has to fit the facts, and not the other way round. We start with a premise, which is fine, but I think it's following that premise that things can get confused. You are right - a hypothesis should be tested against all the available data; if it fits entirely, it's correct; if it fits almost entirely, then there are pieces of the puzzle missing, but its still quite likely to be correct; if several pieces have to be made to fit, the theory doesn't work and should be discarded.

It's tricky territory, however, and very difficult not to interpret the facts with personal bias - maybe its impossible.

I don't have any faith in modern profiling being applied to a 19th century murder case, this is apples and oranges.
Profiling might have its uses today, but not with JtR.

Why's that? I don't know much about criminal profiling, so I'm curious.

Everything must be taken into account, no matter how seemingly irrelevent. A jigsaw puzzle has more obscure pieces than key pieces.

Yes, I totally agree with you here. It's very hard to see the picture though sometimes, isn't it?

[Sally]

Hi Sally,

At first sight yes but, for me, it would depend on whether both statements were being made by the same individual. We all measure by our own criteria- Heinrich and I, for example, are poles apart.

To my mind it's the thinking of the individual which has to be consistent because, realistically, we're probably never going to agree a set of hard & fast rules. Even if the majority agreed, it would still be like the Geneva Convention - some would sign up; others would refuse - as they would be entitled to do.

Regards, Bridewell

Hi Bridewell

Of course you are right - there can never be total consensus; which is why even apparently established facts are overturned from time to time I suppose.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"No thanks Fish."

Gee. Am I SURPRISED! It´s all Crystal clear to me now.

The very best, Sally
Fisherman

[Robert]

Hi Lynn

Only American sense with "The Gay Science."

[lynn cates]

equivocation

Hello Stephen. Thanks.

Just so. Helps to be bilingual.

Cheers.
LC

[Stephen Thomas]

Hello Robert. That's British sense, then? Not American? (heh-heh)

Hello Lynn

Around 1970 I saw Sammy Davis Jnr at the London Palladium in the play Golden Boy. After the play ended he came back on stage to sing and asked 'Has anybody got a fag?. There was a small amount of laughter from the audience and he said 'I see that there are some Americans here tonight'.

[lynn cates]

What's in a name?

Hello Robert. That's British sense, then? Not American? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Sally, mercifully not common, but best to make sure you get a new copy rather than second-hand. I think they sell them on train stations, next to the Agatha Christies.

[Bridewell]

Double Standards

This is a spinoff thread inspired by the current debate on Charles Lechmere/Cross.

Cross and 'Toppy' were both to all extents and purposes ordinary family men. Yet both Cross and Hutchinson have been advanced as a potential culprit in the Ripper case. It is argued in the case of Cross that his long and successful family life has no bearing on the possibility that he was the Ripper. On the other hand, it has been argued that Hutchinson is unlikely to have been the Ripper by virtue of his long and successful family life.

Is this example a simple case of double standards?

Hi Sally,

At first sight yes but, for me, it would depend on whether both statements were being made by the same individual. We all measure by our own criteria- Heinrich and I, for example, are poles apart.

To my mind it's the thinking of the individual which has to be consistent because, realistically, we're probably never going to agree a set of hard & fast rules. Even if the majority agreed, it would still be like the Geneva Convention - some would sign up; others would refuse - as they would be entitled to do.

Regards, Bridewell

[Sally]

"I think perhaps I should put Kant on my reading list."

Before you start, make sure some bastard hasn't torn out the last page to light a fag with.

Is that a common occurrence then?

[Wickerman]

But many modern day suspects were involved in the case in some capacity at the time - could that be construed as circumstantial evidence in your opinion?

Hi Sally.
I wouldn't include Druitt, nor Kosminski. Yes they did live in the vicinity at the time of the murders (Kosminski is assumed to have), but they are not contemporary suspects.
Tumblety even though in London about the time was not suspected either. If I recall correctly, the first insinuation we have came from his own mouth. Tumblety was a 'wannabe', he only claimed to have been suspected, it is not established that this was true.
Chapman (Klosowski), so far as we know only Abberline reflected back that he might have been invloved. Once again, no contemporary mention of him in the case.

And what of contemporary suspects? Is a contemporary suspect a better starting point than a latter day suspect?

The only true contemporary suspects were all cleared, like Pizer, Sadler. So thats a deadend from our point of view. And I would also include anyone investigated in connection with the murders, like Barnett and Hutchinson.

I agree with you. As there is no conclusive evidence, some conjecture is obviously necessary. I think though that there is conjecture; and then there is conjecture -

Indeed, and for the most part conjecture is based on what is not known.
Conjecture should be applied to raise questions, not, as many do, to insinuate solutions.
For example, we can whine about Hutchinson possibly lying about leaving Millers Court at 3:00 am, and subsequently entering Kelly's room and killing her.
Yes, possibly, but this does not make him a suspect, because the whole scenario is conjecture.

On the other hand, if a witness saw a man leaving Millers Court say, 3:30-4:00? and not dressed in an Astrachan coat, but more like a commoner then that would immediately raise suspicions on Hutchinson's story. Now, there is a case to answer. Now, we can suggest he may have been lying, especially if the description matched that previously given by Sarah Lewis.

We should not draw conclusions from conjecture, but that is commonly done here. Conjecture/speculation is to open up questions both for and against a mans culpability. Only if those questions can be answered do we have cause to draw conclusions from those answers.

I think the 'known facts' would have to support the theory rather than contradict for a suspect to carry any weight.

Yes, but we start by compiling the theory from the available facts. That might sound like I'm being pedantic, but I just want to head off the idea that the theory comes first, it doesn't. The theory is what we are left with once we have determined all the facts.

What do you think about criminal profiling? Should we be looking for a person that fits a profile?

I don't have any faith in modern profiling being applied to a 19th century murder case, this is apples and oranges.
Profiling might have its uses today, but not with JtR.

And if we know about the subsequent life of a suspect, should that be taken into account in our assessment?

Everything must be taken into account, no matter how seemingly irrelevent.
A jigsaw puzzle has more obscure pieces than key pieces.

Regards, Jon S.

[Robert]

"I think perhaps I should put Kant on my reading list."

Before you start, make sure some bastard hasn't torn out the last page to light a fag with.