What's your "Standard of Proof"

[Busy Beaver]

In the words of Sherlock Holmes : "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, how ever improbable, must be the truth"

[Abby Normal]

If it was found that any of the valid suspects ever wrote the word juwes in anything they wrote that would pretty much do it for me.
Other than that it would take some sort of attic find with evidence like actual knife, confession, rings/trophies etc.

[Michael W Richards]

One thing that seems obvious when reading various threads is that different people want differing levels of proof. n some cases a person, it seems, will accept a level of evidence in relation to a suspect they "like" and reject similar evidence in relation to a suspect they "reject".

To convict "Jack", and send him off to the gallows, we would need to prove our case "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" that is to a degree that no reasonable person acquainted with the evidence would doubt his/hers/their guilt.

If on the other hand we merely wanted to sue the killer for compensation over the death of a victim we would only need to prove our case "On the Balance of Probabilities", that is it is, on the evidence, more likely than not.

Some people seem to adopt a position of "Well it sounds good to me".

What level of evidence, persuasion do you want, before you say "Case Closed".

Its a reasonable question GUT, but one that Im afraid is pretty much redundant. There will never be a single document or a group of them that will prove who killed these women, we have contemporary opinion, some limited documents and a myriad of "conclusions" made by a wide variety of people, but much of it is contradictory and none of it is worth much in the evidence realm.

Ive come to my own conclusions and they are that no single answer will solve it for everyone, but only a single answer will be the truth. Its likely to be a story that meets all the required parameters,...availability, particular skill sets present, reason for conclusion of the "series", however long people think that was. For me its a consecutive series of 2, with a possible addition of a 3rd victim.

[JeffHamm]

Hmm. If by case-closed we're talking I'm convinced that <insert favorite suspect here> was actually JtR, then that would require new evidence to be uncovered, and something far stronger than just recovered police documents listing their favorite suspect (we have Druitt, Kosminski, Ostrog, Tumblety, etc from that sort of information already, and adding another isn't going to tip the balance). It would have to be something really substantial, something like if they could eventually get DNA off the "From Hell" letter (or even Dear Boss) and link that to someone (presuming of course the Dear Boss doesn't link to a journalist, which would be cool as confirmation of it being a hoax) who is a viable JtR candidate.

However, I'm inclined to think that such proof will never arise. I tend to focus more on trying to arrange, or organize in my head, the "tree of possibilities", who's out, for example, if Tabram were a JtR victim (do we know where Druitt was at that time? - we do know that if one of the post-Kelly victims were to be a JtR victim, Coles, McKenzie, etc then Druitt is out). I like to weigh things, and consider the implications, at these sort of forks in the road and explore both routes without committing myself to believing the choice I made was necessarily correct, but I can accept it for a time being as an "unproven premise" and try to explore where that leads.

I guess, what I tend to look for, while not "closing the case" for me, are presentations which minimize the amount of speculation required to make the story work (i.e. Sickert may have secretly traveled back and forth from France to commit the murders; Druitt may have made it to play cricket in time; etc). While some choices will have to be made, things like what victims to explain, theories that are robust against those decisions are more impressive to me otherwise, when it seems every choice is made because the alternative always disproves the solution, well, that's not looking good as it looks like the solution is driving the choices rather than the choices leading to a solution.

hmmm, I'm not sure I'm actually answering the question very well, but more introspecting and producing a stream of consciousness.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

This is actually a very good and very thought provoking question. I think we need to clarify if we are going to use a standard applicable to 1888 or one applicable to today.

For some reason I can't help but think what the U.S. Supreme Court said about pornography -- "You know it when you see it."

c.d.

[TomTomKent]

Short answer? There is no standard for proof as the time for proof has long passed. We are instead looking at a spectrum of cases from fantasy to most viable suspect, or best supporting evidence.

[GUT]

Sorry Sgt

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.