How do Suspects compare?

[Fisherman]

Hi Sally!

Have you finally found yourself a thread where you may answer my question? Letīs hope so!

Here goes:

On account of the fact that Charles Cross does not have any evidence in the way of a recorded history of psychosises or other psychological issues, and no recorded police record, you stated on another thread that this makes him a "crackpot" theory.
As for Hutchinson, it applies that we have no records at all on any psychological problems and we have just as little on any police record. If Hutchinson was Toppy, this still stands.

Based on the total lack of any evidence of any kind at all, would you say that Hutchinson is only for crackpot theorists too?

It would be nice to hear you elaborate on this, Sally. If Hutchinson is NOT a crackpot theory, then why would that be? And exactly why is Cross so?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Hi Sally!

Have you finally found yourself a thread where you may answer my question? Letīs hope so!

Here goes:

On account of the fact that Charles Cross does not have any evidence in the way of a recorded history of psychosises or other psychological issues, and no recorded police record, you stated on another thread that this makes him a "crackpot" theory.
As for Hutchinson, it applies that we have no records at all on any psychological problems and we have just as little on any police record. If Hutchinson was Toppy, this still stands.

Based on the total lack of any evidence of any kind at all, would you say that Hutchinson is only for crackpot theorists too?

It would be nice to hear you elaborate on this, Sally. If Hutchinson is NOT a crackpot theory, then why would that be? And exactly why is Cross so?

The best,
Fisherman

No thanks Fish. You either don't read or you don't understand. My response to you on your chosen thread stands.

Now if you'd like to offer your take on, say, why the similar 'family man' biography of Cross and Hutchinson can legitimately be interpreted differently when it comes to considering them as a suspect for the Ripper - then please go ahead.

This thread is to discuss the way in which we approach evidence. It isn't a Hutchinson thread.

[Sally]

Hi Sally,



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

Hi Boris - thanks for a great post - I agree with you entirely. Research is the way forward.

[Sally]

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

Hi Lynn - I agree with all of this. I think perhaps I should put Kant on my reading list

But two points pertinent to the present discussion:

Firstly, if we cannot agree on what constitutes a fact; can we ever hope to adopt even a partially objective approach to the consideration of our suspects?

And secondly, do matches on our collective reference set determine the extent to which we will agree with each other? The answer has to be yes, I would think. In which case, we will never reach a consensus.

Then again, in other fields of study, a broad consesnus can be and is reached - although rarely conclusive. Perhaps there is a correlation between the availability of eimpirical data and the likelihood of a consensus.

This would explain why so many theories abound in Ripperology.

But at the same time, it may be only through the acquisition of that data that we can ever agree; in which case the research should certainly continue.

Oh dear - Sunday afternoon theorising

[lynn cates]

Kant, et al

Hello Sally.

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

He is a difficult read due to his native garrulousness. He recognised this in himself when he noted that there were others who knew his system ("Critique of Pure Reason") well, but who could articulate it in fewer words (about 1/3 fewer I'd say). For me, I read each passage thrice. When I read it the third time I said, "Oh, is he trying to say . . . ?" He was.

"Firstly, if we cannot agree on what constitutes a fact; can we ever hope to adopt even a partially objective approach to the consideration of our suspects?"

Possibly not.

"And secondly, do matches on our collective reference set determine the extent to which we will agree with each other? The answer has to be yes, I would think. In which case, we will never reach a consensus."

I agree with both parts here.

"Then again, in other fields of study, a broad consesnus can be and is reached - although rarely conclusive."

Yes, it changes every few years.

"Perhaps there is a correlation between the availability of empirical data and the likelihood of a consensus.'

I should have included ego. (heh-heh)

"This would explain why so many theories abound in Ripperology."

Yes. At least it would provide a partial explanation.

"But at the same time, it may be only through the acquisition of that data that we can ever agree; in which case the research should certainly continue."

It should indeed. Better than working. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[lynn cates]

What's in a name?

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

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]

equivocation

Hello Stephen. Thanks.

Just so. Helps to be bilingual.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Hi Lynn

Only American sense with "The Gay Science."

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"No thanks Fish."

Gee. Am I SURPRISED! Itīs all Crystal clear to me now.

The very best, Sally
Fisherman