What's your "Standard of Proof"

[DVV]

It has become fashionable here to disbelieve the 30th September witnesses.
But to me a good suspect has to make a viable BSM/Sailor Man. (And remember "Sailor Man" is an abusive nickname : the description isn't that of a sailor.)

[c.d.]

That's right. There are some people who would only be convinced if the same woman was killed five times in the exact same way, in the exact same location, and at the exact same time. Even then they would probably express some doubts that it was the same killer.

c.d.

[Barnaby]

All I know is if I were Jack the Ripper facing a jury trial for these murders I would want a jury selected from Casebook! No doubt I'd walk!

[GUT]

G'day Jon

I accept that there is no easy answer I was just trying to get a feel of what people thought on the subject.

[Wickerman]

Hi GUT.
This may come as no surprise, but I doubt you will find a simple answer to your question.

As far as levels of expectation are concerned, just for a moment consider what sources we use when looking into someone's background. Census Records, B.M.D.'s, service records, assizes records, genealogy, etc.
We do this because we are looking for facts, not coincidences, not theories, not possibilities, but factual information.

I think it is fair to say we all recognise and accept what is necessary for us to claim that something is established as a fact.

The best we can ever hope to do is outline a person's background with factual information, but only suggest possibilities of their involvement in any murders.
In hi-lighting or creating a suspect we will never be able to claim we have proof of culpability, only that we might find cause for suspicion.
We may also find cause for suspicion of lying, obvious examples are Mary Kelly, McCarthy, Packer, and of course Hutchinson.
Suspicions that Stride had lied about the disaster were confirmed, and it took factual information to do this.

It is misleading, and intentionally so, to make claims that suspicions they hold against a suspect, or witness for that matter, have been proven as fact when no factual information has been obtained.

We may believe that Mary Kelly lied, or exaggerated her early life, or that someone retelling her story had erred, but without definitive proof by way of factual information we cannot assert she told lies.
The same holds for Hutchinson.

[GUT]

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".