The 120 year old trail is freezing

[Suzi]

Hi Trevor
I doubt that 'EVIDENCE' will be found (sadly) but - we all look at the bits and pieces we have and mercifully some interesting 'bits and pieces' have come out of this..theories or whatever...if we stop digging in whatever area we'll miss that little (possibly not there) clue!!!

Carry on digging I say!!!....There's a village fete somewhere with the answer!!! (I live in hope!!)

Suzi x

[Trevor Marriott]

Glen
With due respect to you i have been involved in criminal cases for 38 years now so I like to think i know a little bit about evidence and what is required in criminal cases.

It doesnt matter whether the case is 100 years old or 10 days old the basic rules of evidence would still have to apply.

Historical evidence in the ripper case as we all know is sadly lacking and some of what is left in my opinion is very debatable and contentious.

Guess you are one of those i referred to as not wanting it solved if it were maybe you would have to get a life

[Suzi]

AP, don't worry, I haven't properly started on Broadmoor yet.

An inside job Mr Q I suggest!!!! xxxxxxxxx

[Robert]

Hi Suzi

I'm prepared to keep digging, but I'm not going to tunnel my way in.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Glenn

I can imagine physical evidence - in the form of letters, asylum records, newspaper reports among other things - that might provide reasonable certainty - but it's more difficult to meet judicial standards (that's why I was dubious about the "shadow of a doubt").

To give an example : suppose that instead of their maddeningly vague and contradictory accounts, Anderson and Swanson had given clear and precise accounts which agreed with each other in every particular. Suppose also that someone discovers a newspaper report of Aaron attacking a woman pre-1888, in London or even in Poland. Suppose too that Aaron's asylum records had indicated that he spoke of being Jack the Ripper and that he was constantly talking about the murders. Of course, it didn't happen like that - but there's no earthly reason why it couldn't have happened like that. That would be fairly strong evidence.

Yes, Robert, but it didn't happen like that, did it?
Swanson, Macnaghten and Anderson DID give contradictory accounts, and to make matters worse you have other officials openly declaring that the police didn't have the clue about the killer's identity or gave OTHER suggestions. And that is the problem with any suspect, because that means you can't link him to the police files.

I am sorry, but to OFFICIALLY claim that a criminal case is closed and solved you have to meet judicial standards.
As I said, if not, it would just be another likely theory. It is the hard reality. And no, asylum recrds or any document is NOT physical evidence.

The only possibility for a document to be regarded as evidence so strong that it would solve the case would be if a classified document from the Parliament or very high authority - like the Commissioner - clearly stated that the Ripper had been caught and that it also revealed details regarding incarceration, trial, imprisonment - you name it - where it could be verified without any inconsistensies.

But that is practically unrealsitic since it's obvious from the police files that there was no unified view of the killer's identity. And personally, I have little belief in conspiracies.

Medical records or any other file alone can't constititue enough evidence where other types of evidence - like forensic or crime scene evidence - is lacking.

You may very well come across a suspect who is VERY LIKELY and producing strong documentation to support it to some degree, but then again that has happened before and it can never be strong enough as evidence in order to OFFICIALLY DECLATRE that the case is solved 100%.
And belkieve me - that is what is needed for the case to be solved.

All the best

[Trevor Marriott]

Glen
To be politically correct on he issue of circumstancial evidence in my post you refer to the fcat that people have been convicted using DNA etc.

Well that DNA evidence would become primary evidence and the circumstancial eveidnce would be somewhat irreleveant and classed as secondary. You need to re read my post you have lost the plot i think

[Suzi]

Robert-
He he That's my plan too........ anyway where were we...........
To be honest if IT WAS/WERE to be solved there would be a hell of a kerfuffle and whoever pressed the right button at the right time would be a mega star in the world of Ripperology for a time..........well probably for ever Gawd hope it doesn't happen that soon ...............

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Glen
With due respect to you i have been involved in criminal cases for 38 years now so I like to think i know a little bit about evidence and what is required in criminal cases.

It doesnt matter whether the case is 100 years old or 10 days old the basic rules of evidence would still have to apply.

Historical evidence in the ripper case as we all know is sadly lacking and some of what is left in my opinion is very debatable and contentious.

Guess you are one of those i referred to as not wanting it solved if it were maybe you would have to get a life

Trevor,

If you have been involved in criminal cases for 38 years your approach is scary. But I guess your problem is - I guess like many others who try to solve the case with modern police methods - is that you have absolutely no clue about historical sources or the difference between working with old and modern sources.

As you say - historical evidence is sadly lacking. And you still maintain the notion that it can be solved? F*ck me.

For your information - no 100 year old case have ever been solved where a suspect's guilt have been proven 100% in modern times. And the reasons for this are obvious: insufficient notes, bad police practice (by modern standrads), destroyed or lost documentation, no alive witnesses to consult, no remaining crime scenes etc. Solving a 30 year old cold case (where DNA is often saved, some crime scenes still intact, the files not still scattered all over the place or destroyed, witnesses may still be alive etc.) is quite different from solving a 120 year old case based on pure theoretical approaches.
But I suspect that was too for you to sink in.

As for me not wanting the case solved:
Listen: it doesn't matter one bit what I WANT or do NOT WANT.
It is harsh reality and if you were a serious researcher with some historical expierence, then this issues wouldn't come as a surprise to you.If you have come across a suspect that in your mind fits the bill and who looks VERY LIKELY - that's fine, and we do learn a bit more about the context each time a new suspect is presnted - but you can't ever declare the case officially solved.

All the best

[Cap'n Jack]

The remarkable thing about Broadmoor is that the majority of folk are confined there for the rest of their natural life, and have to adapt, and talk to the folks around them, which are their keepers.
In such close and secure social encounters the prisoner often has the need to talk about what has gone before, and with absolutely nothing to lose or gain, starts to tell some simple truths.
It is obvious from conflicting police statements of the time that a genuine suspect was confined to an asylum at some point; and it might well be the reluctance of the police officers concerned to disclose or discuss their information which shows that it came from a source which should have been officially unavailable to them.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

It is obvious from conflicting police statements of the time that a genuine suspect was confined to an asylum at some point; and it might well be the reluctance of the police officers concerned to disclose or discuss their information which shows that it came from a source which should have been officially unavailable to them.

AP,

The statements were delivered quite a few years after the murders, and their conflicting content does not really give them much credibility.
Yes, it is perfectly possible that a suspect was confined to an asylum at some point, but it is also obvious that the Ripper's identity was never really ascertained with certainty.
If that was the case, then other officials with access to classified material wouldn't have suggested other names. Not to mention those who openly admitted that the Ripper's identity remained unknown.
And of course, the suspect confined to an asylum could be just another suspect - one of many.
In any case, if there was a uniformed view on who the Ripper was, it would be visible in the files, but it's not.

All the best

[Trevor Marriott]

Glenn
I dont want to get into a personal battle with you and I am only going to say this once !!!!!!


There is no difference between assesing and evaluating historical evidence and modern day evidence. Its either evidence in the tre sense or its not.

The trouble is what you and others may look upon as historical evidence and seek to rely on is not real evidence most of it is hearsay which isnt worth the paper its written on and should not be relied on

But the basic principles apply to all primary and secondar evidence in the ripper case, and as stated sadly there is very little.

But what is happening is that many persons are hypothesizing and all going off on tangents. I thinmk people should stop using the phrases like "What if " "Maybe" "Perhaps" "may have" "Could have"

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

There is no difference between assesing and evaluating historical evidence and modern day evidence. Its either evidence in the tre sense or its not.

No, it's not, because the evidence needed to convict someone is not possible to obtain in historical cases. I have tried to explain why to you but obvuously it won't sink in with you. So I just guess that's says all there is about to say about you as a researcher.
I am not going to say this again: solving a modern case is NOT the same as solving a hundred - or even fifty - year old case.

The trouble is what you and others may look upon as historical evidence and seek to rely on is not real evidence most of it is hearsay which isnt worth the paper its written on and should not be relied on

But the basic principles apply to all primary and secondar evidence in the ripper case, and as stated sadly there is very little.

But for heaven's sake - Trevor. Work with me now, please!
That is just what I am saying! And that is exactly the reason for why there isn't enough evidence in order to solve any case this old.
I absolutely agree with you that historical sources are often unverified documents, newspaper reports and hearsay. And that is why I say it is useless as evidence.
And THAT is why I say that you can't solve the case, because THOSE are the only sources that exists!

Your logic is staggering.

All the best

[Robert]

Hi Glenn

You seem to be arguing a priori that no evidence ever could emerge that would very strongly indicate a particular man (I've already said that judicial standards would be hard to meet). That's why I invented that scenario - to show that it could.

Re the other mysteries you mention. Yes I agree, a good 50% of the interest for me now revolves around such mysteries - the mystery of Druitt, the mystery of Cutbush, the mystery of Kosminski etc. But don't forget that these mysteries would be subject to the same strictures you place on the JTR mystery. We may never be able to OFFICIALLY know why Druitt killed himself, but I contend that we may one day have a fair amount of certainty as to why he did.

Robert

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Glenn

You seem to be arguing a priori that no evidence ever could emerge that would very strongly indicate a particular man (I've already said that judicial standards would be hard to meet).

Hi Robert,

I have no doubt that evidence regarding a certain suspect may surface that that very strongly indicate his guilt (note the word 'indicate').
But as I said, that has happened before and no doubt this will happen regarding a number of other suspects in the future.
However, indications will only remain indications and you will always have people who disagree on the findings or who disputes that evidence. Thus, you can't declare a case solved.

Furthermore, in historical cases where there is such lack of information, there will never ne strong enough circumstancial evidence in order to convict someone in a theoretical sense.
As I said, proposing an interesting suspect and supporting it with seemingly promising documentation is one thing but it will never be enough to solve the case on an official level.

All the best

[Robert]

Hi Glenn

I think we'll have to leave it there. Actually, it's a bit like something that's bang up to date - political donations. A certain company donates a large sum of money to a certain party. A year or two later that company is given a big tax break, or planning permission, or some such favour. You will never find a letter from a company to a politician talking about a bribe. But anyone can see that that's what it is.

And now, I must get my spade because I have to tunnel into an asylum.

Robert