How do Suspects compare?

[PaulB]

But it would still be worthless if the contemporary police thinking was nothting more than a personal opinion of a police officer.

No, it wouldn't be 'worthless' if it was nothing more than a personal opinion, because it would be the personal opinion of a police officer who was there, who was in a position to know the facts, and who was able to reach what was therefore an informed opinion.

And we can study his career and writings (both public and private, insofar as they survive) and what others said and wrote about him privately and publicly, and we can see if he voiced other opinions and if they were considered and if they were generally accurate.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I agree that it (Littlechild's Tumblety observation) would be worthless as evidence in a criminal prosecution, but not worthless as historical evidence of contemporary police thinking.

Regards, Bridewell.

But it would still be worthless if the contemporary police thinking was nothting more than a personal opinion of a police officer.

[PaulB]

Jon,

whether newspaper articles or memoire's are admissable/acceptable on Casebook largely depends on what they say.

I was talking about the practice of historical analysis in general, which (shame of it all) I spent many years of involuntary poverty learning. Obviously, one aspect of such analysis is to weigh your sources and their possible validity. The point I was trying to make was that Mr. Marriott's definition of "evidence" no longer applies to a case now nearly century and a quarter old. Now it is one of historical analysis and the rules are much different.

Don.

Yes, precisely. The great mistake is in thinking of this as a crime investigation and treating the source materials accordingly and applying the rules and terminology of the detective to it. That was okay several decades ago when the Ripper was an acknowledged game like pin the tail on the donkey, but as it has been taken more seriously it's had to be treated as a historical event, just like any and every other historical event.

[PaulB]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulB
...'there is no evidence'! There's a lot of evidence: Littlechild telling us that Tumblety was a suspect is evidence,
It would be evidence Paul, if it were written in 1888, and Littlechild was actively involved in the case, as it is written 30 yrs later it is just heresay.

Hi Jon,
Actually, it would be hearsay if it was something of which Littlechild had little or no direct experience, but if he knew that Tumblety was a Ripper suspect and knew that a large file existed on him, then he would be stating fact as he knew and understood it to be. And if he knew the evidence on which the suspicions were based then his conclusion that Tumblety was ‘a very likely’ suspect, whist his assessment and opinion, was informed and therefore reliable. The fact that he wrote this 30-years after the event is a factor in our assessment of what he tells us, but doesn’t turn his evidence into hearsay.

But we’re talking about historical evidence, by which is meant the sources on which our knowledge of the past is based, and they aren’t always telling us of things they experienced first hand or were even alive to experience first hand. For example, most of our sources about what happened in Roman Britain were writing centuries after the events they are describing – and often at a geographical distance to boot - but they nevertheless constitute ‘evidence’. Okay, Roman Britain was a long time ago and I only use it because it makes what is a source and what constitutes evidence starker and clearer.

Quote:
Tumblety telling us he was a suspect is evidence,
Therefore, given his tendency to be the center of attention, a poser and a charlatan, do you accept all his claims as equally true?

A poser and a charlatan and grabbing the spotlight whenever possible would throw into doubt his claim to have been a Ripper suspect, just as it throws into doubt his other claims and testimonials, but in this case his admission is confirmation of a statement made by Littlechild, unless, of course, one chose to argue that Littlechild’s statement was not independent but based on Tumblety’s admission and the US newspaper claims. There is no evidence for that, however. Nevertheless, Tumblety’s admission is a statement made in the court of history and it constitutes history.

Quote:
newspapers across America telling us he was a suspect is evidence...
On what source? If the press are also printing Tumblety's claims as 'true' then where do we draw the line between truth and fantasy?

I assume that you are suggesting that the newspapers based their reports on Tumblety’s claim/admission rather than on or as well as independent information, in which caseI would have to ask for evidence that that as the case.

On the other hand, should Inspr. Andrews be pursuing Tumblety for both jumping bail & because of his Fenian activities, would it not be in their interests to tell the American press "he's just another Whitchapel murder suspect", rather than give their game away by telling the press the truth?

Given the known Irish sympathizers across America, doors might be more readily opened if the Americans thought they were helping to catch a vicious killer.

Well, whether or not Inspector Andrews was feeding the American press and people a bogus story in the hope of obtaining evidence about Tumblety’s Fenian activities, and whether or not the police needed to go to such subterfuge given the propensity of the Fenians to leak profusely, what we are talking about here is Littlechild telling Sims that Tumblety was suspected of being Jack the Ripper, and as Littlechild was the head of the Special Branch and potentially organised or sanctioned but at least known about Inspector Andrews’ mission, if it was as you suggest, one must wonder why Littlechild would have continued that charade 30 years after the event in a letter to Sims, who for all we know had never heard of and wasn’t interested Tumblety. I’m not saying Tumblety wasn’t a Fenian, only that it doesn’t mean he wasn’t also suspected of being Jack.

[PaulB]

Don, whether newspaper articles or memoire's are admissable/acceptable on Casebook largely depends on what they say.

We have all witnessed disparaging comments about news articles, largely when they bare witness to something "that person" does not wish to hear.

When we put memoire's to any test of accuracy they also bare witness to defective memories at work. Should we really expect recollections put to paper 20-30 years after these events took place to be sufficiently accurate to be the backbone of a theory?

I think not, so accepting errors are present in what is testable, why should we be so sure about those claims which are not testable?

Regards, Jon S.

Jon,
The point Don is making is that letters, official papers, memoirs, newspaper reports, and so on and so on, are the stuff on which our knowledge of the past is constructed. They are our evidence. Trevor denied that this was the case. Which is nuts. And wrong. The reliability of the source is another matter (and obviously of paramount importance), and how we go about assessing that is altogether another question, but Littlechild is evidence. Whilst I hate to draw analogies, in the court of history Littlechild is a witness, his testimony is evidence, and we decide whether he is good evidence or bad evidence, whether he can be trusted or not. We can't be sure whether the untestable evidence is true or not, but neither is that always possible in a court of law. Each case is and has to be assessed on its own merits.

[Supe]

Jon,

whether newspaper articles or memoire's are admissable/acceptable on Casebook largely depends on what they say.

I was talking about the practice of historical analysis in general, which (shame of it all) I spent many years of involuntary poverty learning. Obviously, one aspect of such analysis is to weigh your sources and their possible validity. The point I was trying to make was that Mr. Marriott's definition of "evidence" no longer applies to a case now nearly century and a quarter old. Now it is one of historical analysis and the rules are much different.

Don.

[PaulB]

Should we not try to make the historical facts as accurate as possible and not fill them with the opinions and uncorroborated personal opinions of self proclaimed historians.

What is a historical fact, Trevor?

History books tell us that the killer killed only five women in the light of what is now know are we still asked to take this as historically correct.

No. But you should ask yourself why the history books say there were only five murders, that is to say, on what authority was that conclusion based and was it a good and fair conclusion at the time it was reached, and what information do we have today to argue that it should be revised?

The same applies to the removal of the organs

And the suspects

And The Marginalia

And The MM

So many things about this case have arisen over the past few years that now question these old historical facts. For the sake of history should we not be trying to put the historical records straight not keep trying to corroborate some of these old and outdated historical facts.

I ask again, what do you think a historical fact is, Trevor? Yes, of course we should question the accepted thinking and conclusions of those who have assessed the evidence before us, but it is how we go about doing that that matters and it isn't done by somebody who thinks that newspaper reports and statements by respected senior policemen don't constitute good, solid historical evidence.

[PaulB]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;214976]

Well you or I could put into writing the fact that we suspected The IRA were involved in the taking of the wonder horse Shergar we could even go so far as to name an IRA member now deceased. Those suspicions could be based on almost anything. Without any corroboration its worthless.

Yes, you could write that about Shergar. But tell me, Trevor, what do you think history is?

You see, history is based wholly on what people tell us happened. We weren't alive, we didn't witness it with our own eyes. For our knowledge of the past we are utterly reliant on people who were there to speak to us through official papers, private letters, newspapers and autobiographies, and a host of other material. In simple terms, that means that in the future somebody looking at the Shergar case would come across your hypothetical document naming the IRA suspect. They would then do all the usual, well-honed things that are done when evaluating a source document and they might conclude that you were a reliable source and that you had good reasons for you suspicions and that your suspect was valid. On the other hand, they might conclude that you are a total dork, speculating wildly on a subject on which you were actually utterly ignorant, and that the document had no historical value at all. But that's how we get our knowledge of the past, Trevor. That's what history is. That's how it works.

Littlechild was answering a specific question regarding a Dr D he stated he only knew a Dr T who it is suggested was Tumblety. He states there was a large file on him to which there would have been in regard to the indecent offences and again we get back to a veryy likely suspect based on the same grounds and reasons I quoted Anderson in a previous post.

Even here you are wrong. You don't know that Littlechild was answering a specific question, Trevor. There is nothing in his letter to suggest that he was; people aren't apologetic about inflicting another letter on someone if that person has written asking a specific question to which they hope you will provide an answer!

Nor do you know that the large file on him exclusively concerned indecent offences, or, indeed, concerned them at all. It is probable that it did, but there are other reasons which could have brought Tumblety, not the least his medical/business practices, and especially to have brought him to the attention of the head of the Special Branch, who was not only aware of him, but familiar enough with him to now he was suspected of being the Whitechapel murderer but to think he was 'a very likely' suspect.

Jack the Ripper is the long ago past, Trevor. It is not a current police investigation. It isn't even a cold case. It would help you immeasurably if you understood that, and comprehended was constitutes historical evidence and why.

[Phil Carter]

Don, whether newspaper articles or memoire's are admissable/acceptable on Casebook largely depends on what they say.

We have all witnessed disparaging comments about news articles, largely when they bare witness to something "that person" does not wish to hear.

When we put memoire's to any test of accuracy they also bare witness to defective memories at work. Should we really expect recollections put to paper 20-30 years after these events took place to be sufficiently accurate to be the backbone of a theory?

I think not, so accepting errors are present in what is testable, why should we be so sure about those claims which are not testable?

Regards, Jon S.

Hello Jon,

I tend to agree with this viewpoint. It seems sensible.
However, I feel that each individual item be deemed on its merits.
That in turn will, quite naturally, cause friction by the direction from which the viewer sees each item. Namely, historical interpretation or nay, and to what degree is acceptable.

We have another factor to consider linked in. What amount of historocal personal opinion from an individual do we accept when we know that the individual opining in memoirs expresses known false facts? Do we just put this down to faulty memory? Age? Inflated ego to put the writer in a favourable light perhaps? Into a catagory each piece must be placed by present day enthusiasts. The writer may have bias and agendae which cloud the opinion too. These things must be considered. Anderson is the prime example of this. It has been argued by some that he would not, with his relgious fervour, would not lie. However Simon Wood has shown one hyper argument against this view in discovering the true, factual background of his end of employment shown to be in direct contrast to Andersons own version of the event. His truthfulness is therefore under question, thereby his reliability as a recounter of factual events.

We therefore must question reliability. NOT, I suggest by the title, position and experience of the writer, but the CONTENT of the written piece itself. If that is shown to be flawed with need of caveats one after another to uphold the veracity of the content, then in my honest opinion the piece has become untrustworthy and unreliable whìch taints the factual view of the written piece, though not necessarily the writer.

Sadly as well, and we are all aware of this, the problem of an established and set viewpoint also affects the modern enthusiasts ability to accept change. Some argue vehemently against change and refuse it out of hand. This inability causing rigidity of standpoint.

This is just my view on the matter. Right or wrong, I will stand by one point. How one interprets history is not by who one is, one's qualifications, nor one's reputation. There isnt a set way of interpreting history. Historians themselves disagree on methodology here too.
Common sense is not always given its head either.

Kindly

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Jon S

I think that the bias, inaccuracy and unreliability of memoirs is a point well made, and very true of so many -- from Napoleon's to Tony Blair's.

But it is exactly that criteria which throws the accuracy and relibility of Macnaghten's memoirs into such sharp relief, compared to everybody else's on this subject from that era.

Almost alone among the cops (Reid is the other) Mac concedes in 'Days of My Years' concedes -- or just simply remembers -- that the public and press thoguht that the official investigation of the fiend's reign of terror lasted unti 1891.

Primary sources back this up completely.

Connected to that admission is the related one that the suicided suspect, apparently the best suspect and the only one worth writing about, must have come to the attention of the 'police' at the much later date of 1891.

Sure enough, Macnaghten concedes what he never did in his Report(s) or to his cronies; that the murderer's identity only came to his notice 'some years after' he killed himself. This is obvious from the 1888 to 1891 primary sources, even without the MP Farquhrason bombshell revelations of the past few years.

Whereas othes chose, or leaned towards anomic low-lifes, convicted murderers, dodgy doctors, foreign trash, and sectioned lunatics, Mac instead went against his class/race/sectarian bias and chose a fellow Gentile/Anglican/Gentleman (Winchester, Oxford and a cricketer no less!), a 'Simon Pure' hypocrite, whom he concedes was 'remarkable' and 'fascinating' and 'Protean'. That he could appear perfectly normal, while a seething maniac lay raging beneath the ordinary exterior (he might as well be describing John Wayne Gacy, or Ted Bundy, or Dr. Jeffrey McDonald)

Mac's memoirs also go against the expected bias, in terms of always making the Yard look good, in starkly admitting that the police were clueless about the real Ripper. That he only stopped because he imploded 'soon after' the final and most ghastly murder. After that police were chasing a 'ghost' who was only 'laid' to rest by 'certain facts' which led to a 'conclusion' -- though one unknwon to other police? Howeverm this makes sense if it was received privately and of course posthumously.

Everybody else either claims there was no solution, or that they solved it in 1888 but for one reason or another could not bring the culprit to court.

Having only seen dismissive fragments -- if that -- of theese memoirs in secondary sources I was amazed at how revealing they were when I finally read them for myself.

I agree with you, not disagree. It is the very criteria you are asserting which arguably puts 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' into such a different category of reliability.

It is ebcause they do not fit, are so anomalous -- so odd? -- that they are regularly forgotten/excluded (eg. 'Scotland Yard Investigates', 'The Ultimate Source Companion' and so on)

I realise this flies in the face of thirty years, or so, of the conventional wisdom ...

[Wickerman]

...'there is no evidence'! There's a lot of evidence: Littlechild telling us that Tumblety was a suspect is evidence,

It would be evidence Paul, if it were written in 1888, and Littlechild was actively involved in the case, as it is written 30 yrs later it is just heresay.

Tumblety telling us he was a suspect is evidence,

Therefore, given his tendency to be the center of attention, a poser and a charlatan, do you accept all his claims as equally true?

newspapers across America telling us he was a suspect is evidence...

On what source? If the press are also printing Tumblety's claims as 'true' then where do we draw the line between truth and fantasy?

On the other hand, should Inspr. Andrews be pursuing Tumblety for both jumping bail & because of his Fenian activities, would it not be in their interests to tell the American press "he's just another Whitchapel murder suspect", rather than give their game away by telling the press the truth?
Given the known Irish sympathizers across America, doors might be more readily opened if the Americans thought they were helping to catch a vicious killer.

What more do you want?

More than what anyone has, unfortunately.

Best wishes, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Thus, newspaper articles and the statements of "ageing police officers" are very much evidence in historical analysis.

Don, whether newspaper articles or memoire's are admissable/acceptable on Casebook largely depends on what they say.

We have all witnessed disparaging comments about news articles, largely when they bare witness to something "that person" does not wish to hear.

When we put memoire's to any test of accuracy they also bare witness to defective memories at work. Should we really expect recollections put to paper 20-30 years after these events took place to be sufficiently accurate to be the backbone of a theory?

I think not, so accepting errors are present in what is testable, why should we be so sure about those claims which are not testable?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

After he made his witness statement he was interrogated (his word) by Abberline. He was investigated, although perhaps not for any great length of time.

Precisely so Bridewell. I get tired of having to "overtly" explain myself to Ben.
The contemporary suspects which I refered to were investigated, likewise Barnett, and also Hutchinson. Barnett due to his relationship with the deceased, and Hutchinson due to his claim of being the last person to see her alive.

We do not need to debate whether the tag of "suspect" is applicable or not, the police investigating Kelly's murder will see the implications of their statements and both of their unique positions in relation to this murder.

It would be rather preposterous to think the last person claiming to see Kelly alive, and also admitting to loitering around, would not be investigated to the fullest extent, whatever that turned out to be we do not know.

Regards, Jon S.

[Garry Wroe]

After he made his witness statement he was interrogated (his word) by Abberline. He was investigated, although perhaps not for any great length of time.

Hutchinson wasn't interrogated as a potential suspect, Bridewell. He was closely questioned in an attempt to establish the veracity of his story. Lawende and Violenia underwent an identical procedure, as did every witness who came forward with potentially important information.

[Bridewell]

Well you or I could put into writing the fact that we suspected The IRA were involved in the taking of the wonder horse Shergar we could even go so far as to name an IRA member now deceased. Those suspicions could be based on almost anything. Without any corroboration its worthless.

Hi Trevor,

I agree that it (Littlechild's Tumblety observation) would be worthless as evidence in a criminal prosecution, but not worthless as historical evidence of contemporary police thinking.

Regards, Bridewell.