What's your "Standard of Proof"

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[Busy Beaver]

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

[RedBundy13]

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.

Spot on! Agreed!
I also feel that one or two of the letters may have been mailed by JTR, especially the FROM HELL letter. I mean there was a HUMAN KIDNEY with it! So either it was the worlds most outrageous/funniest practical joke, played out by a medical student who likes to commit felonies (or is dumb enough to play a trick where the outcome could result in him getting hanged as Jack The Ripper ) or it really was written by JTR, in which case we have his handwriting.
That in combination one or two pieces of circumstantial evidence might be enough for some to feel the case is closed. It definitely wouldn’t solve it for everyone but for me at least, if I could find a handwriting match that links my favorite suspect.... along with all the circumstantial evidence against him it would be: Case Solved... for now at least

[Sam Flynn]

The kidney piece might not have been human. My guess is that it wasn't.

[Busy Beaver]

If one person can be proved without a doubt to have killed either, Polly, Annie, Liz, Catherine, or Mary-Jane, then that person must be Jack the Ripper. Whether he also killed Martha, Alice, Emma or Frances is another issue.

[Wickerman]

The kidney piece might not have been human. My guess is that it wasn't.

I would take issue with that Gareth.

My first three years out of school was as a butcher's apprentice. Even at my junior level of knowledge I could tell the difference between a Pig, Sheep or human kidney.
From what we are told the Lusk kidney was sent to Dr Openshaw the curator of the London Hospital, who must surely have been considerably more experienced than I was
In my view, it had to be human, the only two comparable examples (pig, sheep) are easily differentiated under visual examination.

[Abby Normal]

Spot on! Agreed!
I also feel that one or two of the letters may have been mailed by JTR, especially the FROM HELL letter. I mean there was a HUMAN KIDNEY with it! So either it was the worlds most outrageous/funniest practical joke, played out by a medical student who likes to commit felonies (or is dumb enough to play a trick where the outcome could result in him getting hanged as Jack The Ripper ) or it really was written by JTR, in which case we have his handwriting.
That in combination one or two pieces of circumstantial evidence might be enough for some to feel the case is closed. It definitely wouldn’t solve it for everyone but for me at least, if I could find a handwriting match that links my favorite suspect.... along with all the circumstantial evidence against him it would be: Case Solved... for now at least

hi red
totally agree. IMHO the GSG is 95% probability from the killer, hence why I used Juwes as a marker. I also agree that the killer may have written dear boss and or from hell-from hell being the more likely because of the kidney. which was undoubtably human per the drs at the time. Ive never bought that it was so easy to get a hold of a human kidney nor that a "medical student" probably sent it.

I also believe that one of the named persons of interest, suspects or witnesses probably was the ripper and it would take one of the above extra finds to just put it over the top for me.

[Busy Beaver]

Well guys if you think you're on to something- go with it.

[RedBundy13]

Well guys if you think you're on to something- go with it.

Ok Beav, this is what I believe, mostly (I guess it changes every now and then and I go back and forth a bit on it); After the Emma Smith, Martha Tabram and Polly Nichols murders there was an ever growing idea that it was the work of a Jew known as Leather Apron, especially after the Nichols murder it became wide spread especially on the streets but also in the newspapers.

After the murder of Annie Chapman though, this theory reached its boiling point culminating in a small riot which broke out on Hanbury St. following the discovery of her body when it was assumed that no Englishman could be responsible for such a horrific deed and that it must be the work of the Jew known as Leather Apron (after all, a leather apron was found in the yard at 29 Hanbury so it makes perfect sense that the killer left it there as some kind of calling card...). The mob there that morning and afternoon was so incensed that they actually started attacking Jews that were just passing by on the street. All of this was widely covered in the newspapers and soon after "Leather Apron" was "found" and cleared. Unfortunately that didn't clear up the idea that only a foreign Jew could be responsible for these murders.

The next murder occurs in Dutfield's yard right outside of IWMEC's Jewish Socialists Club who just happened to be giving a lecture that night on why all Jews should be Socialists. Israel Schwartz reported seeing Liz Stride being attacked and thrown to the ground. The attacker sees Schwartz and says one word; "Lipski" which we know from Abberline as being a derogatory slang word used against Jews based off of Israel Lipski, a Jew who was executed the year or so prior for poisoning.

Katherine Eddows was killed next in Mitre Square and where was she possibly last seen? Standing in Church Passage talking to a man. And of course it was called Church Passage because it was the alley or passage leading into the square right next to the Great Synagogue of London. Also inside of Mitre Square there was also a coffee shop owned and operated by Jews.

Goulston St. Graffito... Obviously a Jewish (Juwe'ish) connection. Not to mention the location, Goulston St. = about 90% of its residents were Jewish. The Wentworth Dwellings, also a majority of the residents were Jews as well. And can't forget the bathhouse that was a few buildings down who's patrons were a little over 60% Jewish.

In my mind its very clear that JTR wanted everyone to THINK he was Jewish. And I know a lot of discussions have went on about this subject and how Whitechapel was filled with recent arrivals of Eastern European Jews that just about anywhere JTR would have went he would have ran into a Jewish shop or a Synagogue or residents but thats just simply not true. There was A LOT of Eastern European Jews taking up residence in the East End at that time but it was mainly (not always) but mainly in certain neighborhoods and in large clusters generally close to one another. Now obviously thats not always the case and like in everything else, there were exceptions to that rule. But generally speaking this was the case.
And for arguments sake, lets say that this was true. That 90% of Whitechapel was occupied by Jews, it still wouldn't account for the timing. After the well publicized accounts of the attacks on random Jews on Hanbury St. in the newspapers following the murder of Annie Chapman, the very next murder takes place just outside of a Jewish Socialist Club which just so happens to be having a meeting with speakers discussing why all Jews should be Socialists. And during the attack on the woman the attacker speaks one word, which just so happens to be a derogatory slander against the Jews "Lipski"... Followed by the next attack in less than an hour which occurs at one of the biggest gathering points for Jews on the East Side of London, The Great Synagogue of London. It was almost like JTR made a Bee Line to go directly there for his next attack. Followed again by Goulston St. Coincidence? I don't buy it.

And then theres Mary Kelly. Whats the Jewish connection there? None, right? Unless you count George Hutchinson's absolute ridiculous account of seeing the Stereotypical evil rich Jew looking for poor, innocent gentiles. Which I also don't buy for a second. I feel like George thought the public was looking in the "wrong" direction again, and was looking for a man with a "carroty" mustache and he needed to come out and put them back on the "right" track. So thats what he did, he came out and gave his story. And it was just that, a story. Which IMO, should have been fairly simple to see through, even if you don't buy that Hutch might have had something to do with the murders.


Alice McKenzie, discovered dead but only just, down in Castle Alley. Whoever killed her looks to have been interrupted and must have been close it was thought. The PC blows his whistle and immediately the alley is sealed from both ends. Yet somehow her killer still ends up slipping away. And Guess who just happens to lives close by? And by close meaning a stones throw close? George Hutchinson, who resided in the Victoria Home which was on the corner of Wentworth and Commercial St. literally just up the alley from the murder. Coincidentally also just so happens to be right around the corner from Goulston St.. Which some at the time had wondered if JTR actually came back to Wentworth Dwellings to place the cloth and write on the wall since the officer at the time was adamant that it wasn't there 30 minutes prior when he previously walked past....

Does this all point to Hutch undoubtedly being JTR? No, obviously not. Theres no "real" evidence what so ever that points to that (yet). On the other hand: Circumstantial evidence? I would have to say thats a big yes. Some real evidence wouldn't hurt, to either count him out for good or to bump him up a few spots on the suspect list to possibly be as "good" a suspect as Francis Tumblety...

[JeffHamm]

George Hutchinson, who resided in the Victoria Home which was on the corner of Wentworth and Commercial St. literally just up the alley from the murder.

Wasn't the Victoria Home the Peabody Building, which was located at Commercial Street and Folgate Street? (which is up near Annie Chapman's murder location). Or have I got that wrong?

- Jeff

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol27/pp256-264

See the section headed "Nos. 135–153 (odd) Commercial Street"

In 1863 the Peabody Trustees purchased a site in Commercial Street from the Commissioners of Works for £3,300, (fn. 83) and opened their first block of family dwellings there on 29 February 1864 (fn. 84) (Plate 77a). The architect was H. A. Darbishire, (fn. 83) who had previously designed Columbia Square, Bethnal Green, for Miss Burdett Coutts. (fn. 85)

The arrangement of these first Peabody Buildings is noteworthy, the planning being on similar lines to that of Columbia Square, and setting a pattern which was to be followed in many subsequent Peabody estates. This sombre red brick building takes the form of two five-storeyed ranges merging together at the acute-angled corner of Commercial Street and Folgate Street.

[Busy Beaver]

Hi RedBundy13. The leather apron belonged to one of the residents of number 29. His mum told the police that she had washed it and put it out to dry a day or two before the murder. I also do not think that the Ripper was Jewish and agree that he wanted to make everyone think he was. Francis Tumblety is on my 0% chance of being the Ripper, but I would not take any offence if I am proved wrong.

Busy Beaver