What's your "Standard of Proof"

[Pontius2000]

But only if Pinchin Street was a Ripper job.

Kosminski is a known suspect. The torso is a "possible" JtR victim. If there were a definitive link between the two, it would convince me. That's what the original poster asked for.

[GUT]

Kosminski is a known suspect. The torso is a "possible" JtR victim. If there were a definitive link between the two, it would convince me. That's what the original poster asked for.

Well actually it wasn't what the original poster asked for, but I get your point.

You think that if someone committed a murder that a small minority attribute to the ripper then that person must have committed the rest of the ripper murders.

[Barnaby]

The Holy Grail.

Possible. Charles Warren could have discovered this during his excavations under the Temple Mount!

[Pontius2000]

Well actually it wasn't what the original poster asked for, .

"What level of proof, persuasion do you want, before you say 'case closed'?"


If that's not what you asked in your original post, then explain again what you were asking.

Yes, if a known JtR suspect were definitely linked to a murder that "might be" a JtR crime, that would do it for me. No new evidence is coming out on one of the canonical 5 crimes, but new evidence COULD feasibly come out on Jackson or the torso since there were body parts never recovered.

[GUT]

"What level of proof, persuasion do you want, before you say 'case closed'?"


If that's not what you asked in your original post, then explain again what you were asking.

Yes, if a known JtR suspect were definitely linked to a murder that "might be" a JtR crime, that would do it for me. No new evidence is coming out on one of the canonical 5 crimes, but new evidence COULD feasibly come out on Jackson or the torso since there were body parts never recovered.

So why if Torso was shown to be a suspect he is Jack, but if Torso was never a suspect he is not?

[Pontius2000]

So why if Torso was shown to be a suspect he is Jack, but if Torso was never a suspect he is not?

been drinking?

[Wickerman]

There are many many things that are long lost. With what we now know about criminal psychology, etc it could help us at least come to a better understandning of who the killer was if we had all the info that they had at the time.

Ah, no contest there, you are preaching to the converted.
Though that doesn't stop some of us trying to solve a 100 piece jigsaw puzzle with only three pieces left.

[MrBarnett]

Hi all,

This discussion has taken a very interesting turn!

A couple of points of clarification might help me get to grips with the idea. First, by JTR suspect are we talking about a contemporary police suspect or could it be any one of the odds and sods that have surfaced more recently? Second, how much of a connection does there have to be to the torso? Proof positive, or say, an electoral register entry showing our suspect living in Pinchin Street at the time the torso was discovered?

MrB

[Pontius2000]

Hi all,

This discussion has taken a very interesting turn!

A couple of points of clarification might help me get to grips with the idea. First, by JTR suspect are we talking about a contemporary police suspect or could it be any one of the odds and sods that have surfaced more recently? Second, how much of a connection does there have to be to the torso? Proof positive, or say, an electoral register entry showing our suspect living in Pinchin Street at the time the torso was discovered?

MrB

Well, my suspect is Kozminski or someone like him. But I suppose if sicker, gull, maybrick, whoever, had connection to the torso's skull, it would sway me.

No, living in proximity to a crime wouldn't solely be enough to convince. I mean if one of the missing skulls, or one of the uteri were found preserved and definitively linked to a known or likely suspect.

I used the example of the skulls of the torso and Jackson because those are the two things most likely to be discovered. I remember a few years ago a skull being discovered in Britain that solved a 100+ year old crime. Since none of the torso's skulls/heads were found, it is possible the killer may have kept them as souvenirs and they may yet be discovered.

[Errata]

There is already enough evidence to convince a jury of the guilt of several different suspects. Because while a jury is supposed to look for reasonable doubt, the truth is that a good story gets more people convicted than reasonable doubt gets people acquitted. And there are some good stories.

I do not run on some sort of all or none basis. Personally I think Jack killed four, maybe more. But If I could prove a suspect killed Chapman, but could not prove they were anywhere near Kelly, then I'm fine with pinning one murder on him and not the other.

But a lot of that is based on my concept of criminal justice, not my concept of proof. I could convict someone I did not think was the Ripper. I could let someone walk who I was sure was the Ripper. But in order to prove it to myself that I in fact know who the Ripper was, I'd need a lot. A lot I can never get. Like I'd want forensic evidence. Which we don't have, and at this point never will have. I'd want a damn good explanation. I can't be certain of anyone who's motives are unknown or don't make the slightest bit of sense to me. And a lot makes sense to me. I can follow delusions and hallucination like a champ. But if someone tells me that the guy just hated women, that's not even nearly enough. Lots of men AND women hate women. Lots of people commit violence against women because of that hate. It doesn't look like Jack the Ripper. Hate isn't enough.

I'd need to understand it before I could call someone guilty. I'd need a reason.

[John Wheat]

Of course the big problem with the Ripper case in terms of solving it is there isn't enough proof for any suspect which I suppose may go someway to explaining some of the more ridiculous suspects eg VanGough.

[Barnaby]

Of course the big problem with the Ripper case in terms of solving it is there isn't enough proof for any suspect which I suppose may go someway to explaining some of the more ridiculous suspects eg VanGough.

Hi John,

The issue with these ridiculous suspects (as well as for many of the others), is that it is very hard to prove that they could not have been Jack the Ripper. As improbable as it may be, if the person of interest cannot be conclusively placed at another location making it impossible for him to engage in one or more of the crimes, then it remains possible. This gives wiggle room for both the ridiculous suspects and the not so ridiculous.

When we can convincingly rule a suspect out then the field advances. This is what occurred with Ostrog and, to most minds, Prince Eddy, among others. Trying to establish the whereabouts of persons like James Kelly (using my favorite suspect as the example) during the autumn of terror would be instrumental in either exonerating him entirely (for these murders at least) or keeping him in the pool of suspects.

[GUT]

G'day Barnaby

When we can convincingly rule a suspect out then the field advances. This is what occurred with Ostrog and, to most minds, Prince Eddy, among others. Trying to establish the whereabouts of persons like James Kelly (using my favorite suspect as the example) during the autumn of terror would be instrumental in either exonerating him entirely (for these murders at least) or keeping him in the pool of suspects.

If anyone can place James in Whitechapel in Autumn '88 he will jump to the top of my list.

[Barnaby]

That's Sergeant Barnaby, Inspector Gut

And until this occurs one way or another we are left with a compelling character who can't be placed in Whitechapel or anywhere else in the world on the dates of the murders. Yet he was somewhere for sure, and this is what makes it all maddening.

[GUT]

Sorry Sgt