How do Suspects compare?

[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?

[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.

[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'.

[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]

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]

paradigms

Hello Jonathan.

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

I never thought of it just that way, but a definite possibility.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Personally at present I don't "like" any candidate....

All the best

Dave

[harry]

Whatever method is used,bear in mind that people lie.

[Sally]

Hi Wickerman, thanks for your interesting response.

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

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

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.

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 - I think the 'known facts' would have to support the theory rather than contradict for a suspect to carry any weight. But then as you say, an assessment of viability will be subjective. Is there any way in which we might strive for objectivity?

3) The criteria for entertaining a viable suspect should be no different than that used by police authorities today.

What do you think about criminal profiling? Should we be looking for a person that fits a profile? The suggested profile of Barnett by Paley springs to mind as an example - it looks convincing at first glance (well, it did to me, many centuries ago ) but in fact many of those points against him - such as an absent father for example - would have been commonplace in context.

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

[Sally]

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

Hi Lynn

So in other words, we're all doomed to begin with because of our hidden bias? Hmm.

But the trouble is, if you're aware of your own bias do you then find yourself in a position whereby you consciously try to circumnavigate that bias in your research; and in doing so create another bias?

It's very perplexing!

[lynn cates]

motive

Hello Harry.

"Whatever method is used, bear in mind that people lie."

Quite. But usually for a motive.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

on reality

Hello Sally.

"So in other words, we're all doomed to begin with because of our hidden bias?"

Well, I would not quite have used "doomed." Perhaps a better way is to say, we filter "reality" according to our own structures. For example, given the current atomic theory, we know "objects" are merely collections of atoms. But when we eat, the food is placed on a table. We hardly think in terms of food being placed on a collection of atoms. We naturally interpret reality, however, in terms of "objects" like tables.

"But the trouble is, if you're aware of your own bias do you then find yourself in a position whereby you consciously try to circumnavigate that bias in your research; and in doing so create another bias?"

Well, first, what is actually a bias is often referred to by us as "reality" whereas the bias of another we call "fantasy." But, given our awareness of our biases may, as you suppose, cause over correction.

Two things to bear in mind.

1. What we call an external material world (ie, "the real world") cannot be proven to exist. At best, we have sensory corroboration which ultimately depends on our faith in those same sensory modalities.

2. Bias may not be a bad thing. After all, lack of proof notwithstanding, there may be an independent external, material reality. In which case our bias to believe in such may actually correspond to what is the case.

But enough of my rehash of Kant's noumenal/phenomenal distinction.

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Hi Lynn

Well, I would not quite have used "doomed." Perhaps a better way is to say, we filter "reality" according to our own structures. For example, given the current atomic theory, we know "objects" are merely collections of atoms. But when we eat, the food is placed on a table. We hardly think in terms of food being placed on a collection of atoms. We naturally interpret reality, however, in terms of "objects" like tables.

Oh I don't know, it's quite entertaining to think of everyday objects being a collective. We interpret what we can see by consensus. If we don't know what an object is, because it's cultural context is unknown to us for whatever reason, then we try to explain it using our own reference set. I suppose the same could be said to be true if we're looking for a suspect; which brings us back round to bias again. Hmm..

Well, first, what is actually a bias is often referred to by us as "reality" whereas the bias of another we call "fantasy." But, given our awareness of our biases may, as you suppose, cause over correction.

Yes, very true. But even our own 'reality' is subject to mutable influence - it's why the same object or set of events can and will be interpreted and reinterpreted according not only to who is making the assessment; but according to the times.

Bias may not be a bad thing. After all, lack of proof notwithstanding, there may be an independent external, material reality. In which case our bias to believe in such may actually correspond to what is the case.

That's a very good point - you mean it may all be real? Still, I wouldn't be surprised if we were all really living in a Matrix reality - but I'm wandering off now...

[lynn cates]

on reality--part 2

Hello Sally.

"Oh I don't know, it's quite entertaining to think of everyday objects being a collective. We interpret what we can see by consensus. If we don't know what an object is, because it's cultural context is unknown to us for whatever reason, then we try to explain it using our own reference set."

Indeed, but I would go further. Insofar as we even REFER to an "object" at all depends upon our "categories," to use the Kantian word.

"I suppose the same could be said to be true if we're looking for a suspect; which brings us back round to bias again."

That's it, in a nutshell. My "fact" is your "conjecture"; one's "definitely ascertained X" is "faith that X" to another.

"Yes, very true. But even our own 'reality' is subject to mutable influence - it's why the same object or set of events can and will be interpreted and reinterpreted according not only to who is making the assessment; but according to the times.'

Indeed. But a change can occur at a whim. It is like the 2D representation of stairs. Do they ascend or descend? Well, the "gestalt switch" can change all that. (Note that, given they ARE 2D, they neither ascend NOR descend--merely a perception.)

"That's a very good point - you mean it may all be real?'

Indeed. There may be "res"--an external, material reality, after all.

"Still, I wouldn't be surprised if we were all really living in a Matrix reality - but I'm wandering off now..."

Actually, that is how my students put it. But all one need do is read Berkeley and append Kant's "explanation."

Cheers.
LC

[bolo]

Hi Sally,

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

Profiling is a good example of the problems we are confronted with in a very cold case like ours. Even if the profiles that have been made in the past are correct, there is no way to apply them to each and every suspect simply because of a lack of data.

That is why I think that criminological methods should only be a subset of a thorough historical research with the aim to fill all the gaps.

Of course these gaps can also be filled with speculation, and that is not a bad thing per se if it is done with your feet firmly on the ground.

In most suspect cases, there is not enough meat on the bone yet to bring out the ol' truncheon. Take Cross for example, he looks like a worthy candidate for further research but as of yet, the theory of him being the Ripper is based on a handful of peculiarities during his discovery of the body, his actions afterwards and general movement patterns in the Whitechapel district. Perhaps this makes him a valid contender for suspect status but not a real suspect yet. Only meticulous research will tell us more, and the more we know, the more we will be able to evenly apply the same criteria to all suspects, including Cross, Hutch, etc.

Regards,

Boris