What's your "Standard of Proof"

[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".

[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]

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.

[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!

[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.

[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.)

[Fisherman]

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.

Well, no one killer could kill a woman simultaneously five times, c.d., so there may be something to the suggestion - there must have been five killers, I gather.

Fisherman

[Pontius2000]

If a previously undiscovered skull, like that of Elizabeth Jackson or the Pinchin St Torso were discovered and definitely linked to a known suspect or a likely suspect, it would be convincing for me.

Or if one of the more "believable" letters, like the "from hell" letter, were definitively linked to a known and likely suspect.

or if some long lost police document or evidence came to light/re-discovered that shed further proof toward a suspect.

[Sam Flynn]

If a previously undiscovered skull, like that of Elizabeth Jackson or the Pinchin St Torso were discovered and definitely linked to a known suspect or a likely suspect, it would be convincing for me.

Well, at least insofar as the torso murders are concerned. Actually, insofar as one of the torso murders was concerned. It would be quite a leap from there to assert we'd also caught Jack the Ripper.

or if some long lost police document or evidence came to light/re-discovered that shed further proof toward a suspect.

That would be more like it. Better still, if we had a convincing, authenticated confession, ideally together with a box containing some organic trophies. (Given the passage of time, they'd be "atrophies" by now, I guess.)

[pinkmoon]

Hi gut,I would love to know what sir Melvilles "private information" was I think it would either greatly disappoint us or potential solve this case.

[Wickerman]

....or if some long lost police document or evidence came to light/re-discovered that shed further proof toward a suspect.

But surely, if such evidence existed, we wouldn't be here?

[GUT]

G'day Pinkmoon

Hi gut,I would love to know what sir Melvilles "private information" was I think it would either greatly disappoint us or potential solve this case.

The Holy Grail.

[Pontius2000]

Well, at least insofar as the torso murders are concerned. Actually, insofar as one of the torso murders was concerned. It would be quite a leap from there to assert we'd also caught Jack the Ripper.That would be more like it. Better still, if we had a convincing, authenticated confession, ideally together with a box containing some organic trophies. (Given the passage of time, they'd be "atrophies" by now, I guess.)

If the Pinchin St turned up and was definitively linked to say, Aaron Kosminski, it would be hard enough proof for me that he was JtR

[Pontius2000]

But surely, if such evidence existed, we wouldn't be here?

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.

[GUT]

G'day Pontious

If the Pinchin St turned up and was definitively linked to say, Aaron Kosminski, it would be hard enough proof for me that he was JtR

But only if Pinchin Street was a Ripper job.