How do Suspects compare?

[Jonathan H]

That's an interesting way of looking at it, Lynn.

A thematic approach?

Perhaps Macnaghten's real agenda was the same? He was committed to Scotland Yard not being linked to any progroms, and so regardless of any evidence it was not going to be a Jew.

Finding Druitt was perfect because Mac could so easily remould the tragic barrister as an Henry Jekyll/Edward Hyde figure; a Gentile and Gentlemanly persona understandable and acceptable to the 'better classes'.

And as far removed from Aaron Kosminski as possible.

I maant to write before as a title: Is it a mystery?

[lynn cates]

models

Hello Sally. It may depend upon the model one has before the mind. If your model is of a sly and sinister intellectual, clever and taunting, you might be led to D'Onston. If you think it is a psychotic, you may think Kosminski or Levy appropriate. An ordinary person? Perhaps Druitt, Cross or Hutchinson. A thug? Perhaps LeGrande would work.

And if you are not looking for a single person, then you are a crackpot like me. (Heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Jonathan H]

It it a mystery?

In terms of 'Jack the Ripper' as an historical subject, it is about doing your own research into the primary sources.

What you quickly discover is that according to two senior policemen -- and arguably a third backing one -- is that, at some point, it was no longer a mystery.

Of course Macnaghten and Anderson pointed to competing deceased Rippers (only one of whom was actually dead) and only one retired chief acknowledges the existence of the other suspect -- and a compelling theory needs to explain this disparity?

Yet the notion that they must cancel each other out, is actually a theory to explain these sources' disagreement. Take any historical subject and you will find sources are always in competition, ferociously clashing over large and small issues. It is sheer intellectual laziness to simply say Anderson and Macnaghten automatically cancel each other out.

And this is not new.

Secondary sources, starting in the early to mid-20's, robustly defied the police memoirs and rebooted the entire case as an 'unsolved mystery' (and each newcomer supplied his own competing yet allegedly authentic Ripper).

This was actually an enormous (and profitable) gamble; that the senior policemen who were there did not know -- all of them -- what they were talking about, and, arguably, decades later the discovery of previously unknown primary sources torpedoed the so-called 'unsolved mystery'.

[Wickerman]

There are a few rather obvious conclusions we can draw from any number of suspect debates.

1) As no actual evidence exists, suspects are rated on suspicion value.

2) Rather than stick with what is known about a suspect, theorists tend to offer conclusions based on their own assumptions on what is not known about the suspect. What this does in effect is take the wireframe of a real life person, and then flesh out the frame with the body of a pseudo villain that in truth never existed.
This is essentially inventing your own killer.

3) The criteria for entertaining a viable suspect should be no different than that used by police authorities today. The downfall is, obviously, the police work with evidence, something which we know is lacking in the Ripper case.
Therefore, any criteria used will be subjective, to what degree will depend on who is proposing the criteria and what their perspective is.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

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

The question of comparison between Cross and Hutchinson as viable candidates for the mantle of Ripper raised by posters there raises interesting questions about how we assess a suspect. Do we apply our criteria consistently? And if not, should we? Should one rule fit all when we look for evidence to support our theories - or is it viable to adjust our expectations according to the facts?

The question could as easily apply to any suspects currently offered as Ripper candidates. But let's take an example pertinent to Cross and Hutchinson to begin with.

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? Or do the apparently suspicious circumstances in which both men were placed differ sufficiently for us to make a different and separate judgement about their characters in each case?

Fundamentally, this is a thread to discuss our criteria for selecting a suspect. What makes a good suspect?