What evidence would it take?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I still don't think a horse and cart would have sparked that much interest however I refer you to Aethelwulf's last post.

And presumably you think the murderer left Mitre Square, walked to his horse and cart, subsequently drove to the vicinity of Goulston Street, parked them again, left the apron piece, walked back to his horse and cart, and drove home, without anyone noticing?

[John Wheat]

And presumably you think the murderer left Mitre Square, walked to his horse and cart, subsequently drove to the vicinity of Goulston Street, parked them again, left the apron piece, walked back to his horse and cart, and drove home, without anyone noticing?

No that would be absurd.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No that would be absurd.

That is a rather disconcerting reply.

It seems that you agree with me rather than with yourself!

[John Wheat]

That is a rather disconcerting reply.

It seems that you agree with me rather than with yourself!

No I think it possible that someone could stable a horse and cart somewhere in Whitechapel without attracting suspicion.

[DJA]

Bloke named John McCarthy in Dorset Street could have helped out.

That's where Henry ...... Jack was headed.

[Fiver]

This is a pretty important question - should probably have its own thread. Here are my criteria for a credible suspect roughly in order of importance (need not be all of these):

1. Doesn’t have an alibi for any C5 murder, and ideally not for the Tabram or McKenzie murders
2. Lived in the area, ideally a little NE of Mitre Square
3. Was male and heterosexual
4. Was known to be either insane or criminally violent
5. Was 22-38 years old in 1888; the closer to 30, the better
6. Has a known connection to the case, especially one that raises suspicion
7. Had at least rudimentary anatomical knowledge

I don't think claiming to be JtR counts for much. There were lots of false confessions.

I completely agree on confessions - there were lots of false confessions.

All of your points are worth considering. To me the key points are:

* Doesn't have an alibi.
* Lived and/or worked in the area. The Ripper was either extremely lucky or he knew the streets well.
* Male and heterosexual. Which eliminates precious few suspects.

Your age estimate is reasonable, though I'd see that more as a guideline. The important thing is a suspect being reasonably fit.

Your other three points are more debatable.

While it is certainly possible that the Ripper was known to be criminally violent, he got away with the killings so he might have appeared normal to people around him. For insane suspects, the question would be were they functional enough that the victims would trust him.

There are a lot of people with known connections to the case. I'm not sure any of them were the Ripper.

There's also the question of what actions raise suspicion. I've seen people insist that one witness walking on the right side of the road was highly suspicious behavior. But they did't find it suspicious that two other witnesses walked down the right side of that same road.

Level of anatomical knowledge skill was debated even at the time, with period medical examiners giving completely different estimates.

[Fiver]

Some key criteria that are missing:

• Proven murderer and inflicted simialr injuries to at least one of the C5
• Inflicted any similar injuries to any of the 'additional'/non canonical victims/has plausible links to some of the non canonicals
• Fits physical description of killer
• Fits profile of killer

Obviosuly we aren't going to find a suspect that fits all of the criteria that people come up with but some are more important than others.

Which physical description? We have lot of witness descriptions of people seen with the victims, but no proof that any of those people were the Ripper.

Which profile? And the real world track record on profiling isn't very good.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Which physical description? We have lot of witness descriptions of people seen with the victims, but no proof that any of those people were the Ripper.

Which profile? And the real world track record on profiling isn't very good.

I don't think anyone is expecting to find proof after so much time and I don't know what would be considered to be proof, either.

I do know that the only witness description of someone seen with a victim that can reasonably be considered to have been of her murderer was the one provided by Joseph Lawende.

Elizabeth Long's 40-plus Jew, seen talking to Annie Chapman at a time when she was already dead, Israel Schwartz's exhibitionist woman-beater seen with Stride about 10-15 minutes before she was found with her throat cut, and the 30-plus Jew seen with Mary Kelly and wearing such expensive attire that he could not reasonably have expected to leave Dorset Street intact himself, do not come anywhere near to being feasible suspects, but the man seen chatting with Eddowes nine minutes before her mutilated body was found in a nearby square is a strong suspect.

The 30-odd man with a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor is most likely to have been the Whitechapel Murderer, yet the affirmation of this fact has attracted a degree of ridicule here which none of the other witnesses' suspects has ever attracted.

[Lewis C]

I completely agree on confessions - there were lots of false confessions.

All of your points are worth considering. To me the key points are:

* Doesn't have an alibi.
* Lived and/or worked in the area. The Ripper was either extremely lucky or he knew the streets well.
* Male and heterosexual. Which eliminates precious few suspects.

Your age estimate is reasonable, though I'd see that more as a guideline. The important thing is a suspect being reasonably fit.

Your other three points are more debatable.

While it is certainly possible that the Ripper was known to be criminally violent, he got away with the killings so he might have appeared normal to people around him. For insane suspects, the question would be were they functional enough that the victims would trust him.

There are a lot of people with known connections to the case. I'm not sure any of them were the Ripper.

There's also the question of what actions raise suspicion. I've seen people insist that one witness walking on the right side of the road was highly suspicious behavior. But they did't find it suspicious that two other witnesses walked down the right side of that same road.

Level of anatomical knowledge skill was debated even at the time, with period medical examiners giving completely different estimates.

I agree with most of this. The items on the lower part of my list aren't meant to be absolute requirements, but rather qualities that would make me more likely to suspect someone than a person that didn't have those qualities, all else being equal.

Good point about insanity. While in general I would be more likely to suspect someone who was insane, it should be considered the type and degree of insanity. There might be some suspects for which the nature of their insanity actually makes them less likely suspects because they wouldn't have been trusted, or would have been unlikely to have been able to escape every time.

It is debatable which actions raise suspicion. For example, I find George Hutchinson and John Richardson more suspicious than Charles Lechmere, but some people would say the opposite. So there is some opinion involved in this criterion.

I included rudimentary anatomical knowledge, but put it at the bottom of the list. My thinking is that some think that he would have needed it, and others do not. If those who think it was needed are right, then suspects who had none couldn't have been JtR. However, if those who say it wasn't needed are right, then those who had it and those who didn't have it are equally likely to have been JtR. There's no scenario by which those who had no knowledge are more likely to have been him than those who did have it.

[Lewis C]

I don't think anyone is expecting to find proof after so much time and I don't know what would be considered to be proof, either.

I do know that the only witness description of someone seen with a victim that can reasonably be considered to have been of her murderer was the one provided by Joseph Lawende.

Elizabeth Long's 40-plus Jew, seen talking to Annie Chapman at a time when she was already dead, Israel Schwartz's exhibitionist woman-beater seen with Stride about 10-15 minutes before she was found with her throat cut, and the 30-plus Jew seen with Mary Kelly and wearing such expensive attire that he could not reasonably have expected to leave Dorset Street intact himself, do not come anywhere near to being feasible suspects, but the man seen chatting with Eddowes nine minutes before her mutilated body was found in a nearby square is a strong suspect.

The 30-odd man with a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor is most likely to have been the Whitechapel Murderer, yet the affirmation of this fact has attracted a degree of ridicule here which none of the other witnesses' suspects has ever attracted.

Has that been ridiculed? I thought that the notion that Lawende was the most likely to have seen JtR was a pretty common view. What I would think there might be a question about is how accurate his description was, and even there, the same question could be raised about descriptions by other witnesses.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Has that been ridiculed? I thought that the notion that Lawende was the most likely to have seen JtR was a pretty common view. What I would think there might be a question about is how accurate his description was, and even there, the same question could be raised about descriptions by other witnesses.

The commotion seems to have been triggered by my suggestion that Lawende's suspect was a sailor.

There was no shortage of people suggesting that he was a Jew and I don't recall that arousing widespread indignation.

Similarly, Elamarna's comment that the allegedly-Jewish alleged suspect allegedly identified at the Seaside Home would probably have spoken Yiddish at his alleged identification could have been received with howls of ridicule, but was not.

His suggestion that the same person may have worn Jewish religious garb specially for the occasion was received with respect even though it is patently ludicrous.

The suggestion made by several here, including Elamarna, that the brute seen by Schwartz may have been Jewish, in defiance of all the evidence, seemed to be treated as a perfectly reasonable observation.

But when I suggest that a man described by the only person who could reasonably be thought to have provided a description of the murderer as a sailor was a sailor, that is just too much!

[Fiver]

I do know that the only witness description of someone seen with a victim that can reasonably be considered to have been of her murderer was the one provided by Joseph Lawende.

Elizabeth Long's 40-plus Jew, seen talking to Annie Chapman at a time when she was already dead, Israel Schwartz's exhibitionist woman-beater seen with Stride about 10-15 minutes before she was found with her throat cut, and the 30-plus Jew seen with Mary Kelly and wearing such expensive attire that he could not reasonably have expected to leave Dorset Street intact himself, do not come anywhere near to being feasible suspects, but the man seen chatting with Eddowes nine minutes before her mutilated body was found in a nearby square is a strong suspect.

The 30-odd man with a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor is most likely to have been the Whitechapel Murderer, yet the affirmation of this fact has attracted a degree of ridicule here which none of the other witnesses' suspects has ever attracted.

Again, you sate your opinions as fact.

Long's suspect was seen a half hour before Chapman was found dead. In addition to you getting the timing wrong, you also get her description wrong - Long did not say the suspect was Jewish.

You omit the people seen with Stride by Marshall, Packer, PC Smith, and Brown. And the person Mortimer saw walking down the street. And dismiss Schwartz out of hand, even though the police took him seriously.

Lawende saw Eddowes with a man 10-15 minutes before her body was found - the same time gap you use to dismiss Schwartz's subject. And Levy, who saw the same man, put him about 6 inches shorter than Lawende did.

You also ignore descriptions given by Cox and Lewis of men that they saw Kelly with. And dismiss Hutchinson out of hand, even though the police took him seriously.

Lawende's suspect might be the Ripper. No one disagreed with that. Plenty of people disagreed your idea that he was the only credible suspect and your theories about the man Lawende's saw.

So again, which physical description? Do we go with Long, Marshall, Smith, Packer, Brown, Mortimer, Schwartz, Lawende, Levy, Cox, Lewis, Hutchinson? Do we know that any of them saw the Ripper? And if they did, how accurate were their desciptions of strangers seen for a few moments in poor lighting?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Again, you sate your opinions as fact.


I wrote:

'The 30-odd man with a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor is most likely to have been the Whitechapel Murderer...'


I don't know how anyone can claim that I stated my opinion as fact.


Long's suspect was seen a half hour before Chapman was found dead. In addition to you getting the timing wrong, you also get her description wrong - Long did not say the suspect was Jewish.


I did not make either mistake you claim I made.

I did not get the timing wrong.

I wrote:

'... seen talking to Annie Chapman at a time when she was already dead ...'

Your point that this claimed sighting of Chapman occurred about 'a half hour before she was found dead' in no way contradicts what I wrote!

Long did indeed describe the man as being Jewish, just as Hutchinson described his suspect as being Jewish.


You omit the people seen with Stride by Marshall, Packer, PC Smith, and Brown. And the person Mortimer saw walking down the street. And dismiss Schwartz out of hand, even though the police took him seriously.


I did not dismiss Schwartz as a witness at all.

I dismissed the brute he saw as a suspect comparable to Lawende's.


Lawende saw Eddowes with a man 10-15 minutes before her body was found - the same time gap you use to dismiss Schwartz's subject. And Levy, who saw the same man, put him about 6 inches shorter than Lawende did.


Lawende saw the man about nine minutes before her body was found.

There are major differences between the two situations.

It is hardly believable that a brute making an exhibition of himself by throwing a woman about is then going to go with her into a dark place and cut her throat.

During the nine minutes between Lawende's sighting and the discovery of the body, there occurred extensive mutilations, whereas Stride was not mutilated.


You also ignore descriptions given by Cox and Lewis of men that they saw Kelly with. And dismiss Hutchinson out of hand, even though the police took him seriously.


Well, if Anderson and Swanson took Hutchinson's Jewish suspect seriously, then it is truly amazing that the best suspect they could come up with was Aaron Kosminski.


Lawende's suspect might be the Ripper. No one disagreed with that. Plenty of people disagreed your idea that he was the only credible suspect and your theories about the man Lawende's saw.


I have no objection to polite disagreement.


So again, which physical description? Do we go with Long, Marshall, Smith, Packer, Brown, Mortimer, Schwartz, Lawende, Levy, Cox, Lewis, Hutchinson? Do we know that any of them saw the Ripper? And if they did, how accurate were their desciptions of strangers seen for a few moments in poor lighting?


That is impossible to know, but I have yet to see a convincing argument against Lawende being an entirely reliable witness, as he was always considered to be by the police.

[Lewis C]

The commotion seems to have been triggered by my suggestion that Lawende's suspect was a sailor.

There was no shortage of people suggesting that he was a Jew and I don't recall that arousing widespread indignation.

Similarly, Elamarna's comment that the allegedly-Jewish alleged suspect allegedly identified at the Seaside Home would probably have spoken Yiddish at his alleged identification could have been received with howls of ridicule, but was not.

His suggestion that the same person may have worn Jewish religious garb specially for the occasion was received with respect even though it is patently ludicrous.

The suggestion made by several here, including Elamarna, that the brute seen by Schwartz may have been Jewish, in defiance of all the evidence, seemed to be treated as a perfectly reasonable observation.

But when I suggest that a man described by the only person who could reasonably be thought to have provided a description of the murderer as a sailor was a sailor, that is just too much!

Maybe the thing here is that it sounds like Elamarna is saying "may be" and "might", and there are so many uncertainties that as long as you say "may be" and "might", it's hard to argue.

Tom Wescott said that BS Man might have been Morris Eagle, who I believe was Jewish, so it does sound like it's at least a possibility that BS man was Jewish.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Maybe the thing here is that it sounds like Elamarna is saying "may be" and "might", and there are so many uncertainties that as long as you say "may be" and "might", it's hard to argue.

Tom Wescott said that BS Man might have been Morris Eagle, who I believe was Jewish, so it does sound like it's at least a possibility that BS man was Jewish.

Well, Elamarna said that Kosminski / Anderson's suspect would 'probably' have spoken Yiddish with the witness at the alleged identification.

That is stronger than 'may be' or 'might'.

There is no evidence that the alleged identification took place, yet Elamarna claims it is probable that a conversation in Yiddish took place at it between the suspect and witness, with the police presumably standing and watching.

I myself have never said that the Whitechapel Murderer was a sailor, which makes the commotion I mentioned even more puzzling.

Four points about Morris Eagle: first, why would Eagle, having chaired the discussion at the nearby educational club, have later thrown a woman about outside while drunk?

Why would Eagle, being Jewish, and a member of the secular Jewish community, as his participation in the discussion attests, have shouted a well-known anti-Jewish insult as a man of decidedly Jewish appearance passed by?

Why would Schwartz have estimated Eagle's age as 30, when he was about 24?

How could Eagle have been the man seen by Schwartz, when he was in the club continuously from shortly after 12.35 a.m. until about 1 a.m.?