Circumstantial evidence

[curious4]

"Circumstantial evidence is that which may be inferred from particular actions, or from the circumstances, which either usually or necessarily attend a given condition of fact." Police Code page 42

What part can circumstantial evidence play in ripperology? Can we infer from their actions that Kate and Liz had arranged to meet someone on the night of their deaths? Can we assume that more than one person was involved in the killings from the witness reports. For example. How much can we rely on such evidence? I think in the cases of Liz and Kate that there is such evidence. And as the Police Code also states "circumstantial evidence has often been found to produce a strong assurance of the prisoner's guilt."

Best wishes
C4

[Pcdunn]

Hello, Curious,

This is a very interesting point. Circumstancial evidence sometimes gets a bad rap, but in cold cases it is often all we have to rely on (and these murder cases are the coldest of all, perhaps)-- the difficult part is realizing what IS evidence, what is a solid inference, and what is mere speculation. For example, there is more evidence that Francis Thompson shaved with a scalpel -- he wrote this in a letter-- than there is for speculating that Vincent Van Gogh could have ferried back and forth from France to England in the autumn of 1888.

Complicating the Ripper case is that much of the offical documentation is missing, and interpreting what we have left is sometimes difficult.

I agree that Kate and Liz seemed to be expecting to meet someone, judging from their dress and attitude upon leaving. Liz certainly was planning on "walking out" with someone, and was seen doing so.
Kate getting drunk enough to imitate a fire-engine and be arrested for it has puzzled me. Was she pretending, aiming on a safe place for the night? Then why leave before the night was over, and seem concerned about the time?

What other things are reasonable deductions or inferences?

[SirJohnFalstaff]

For me, circumstantial evidence is something very interesting that can point in a specific direction, but cannot in any case constitute a clue or a proof. They help supporting clues, but otherwise, they are useless.

Examples: suspect location at the time of the murder, anatomical knowledge, mysterious disappearance in November 1888.

Just because you have a Mafia expert marksman in Dallas in November 1963, doesn't make him JFK's shooter.

[Wickerman]

"Circumstantial evidence is that which may be inferred from particular actions, or from the circumstances, which either usually or necessarily attend a given condition of fact." Police Code page 42

Right so, a piece of information which does not directly point to guilt, but is consistent with guilt, is viewed as circumstantial.
One circumstance will not make a case as their could be alternate explanations, but several circumstances all pointing to the same conclusion will make a case. In fact this is how the prosecution compiles their case against the accused.

What part can circumstantial evidence play in ripperology?

Presently, the bulk of what we discuss is circumstantial evidence.

- Take a man fleeing away from Mitre Sq. with blood on his clothes - this is circumstantial as he claims to be a butcher, or doctor.

- In his pocket is a knife - also circumstantial, a man carrying a knife was common.

- In his hand he was carrying a piece of bloodstained apron - circumstantial, he claims he picked it up off the street.

Individually these points are all circumstantial, but taken together a case could be made against this person.

Can we infer from their actions that Kate and Liz had arranged to meet someone on the night of their deaths?

Liz had been with someone, possibly more than one that night.
Kate may have been heading to meet someone, but how did she know she was going to be taken to jail that evening, then how would she know if she would be released at 1:00 am? (wasn't that the gaolers choice?).
Also Kate could have been heading towards her daughters, south of the river.

Can we assume that more than one person was involved in the killings from the witness reports.

I don't know if you are talking about several people involved in one killing, or several murders committed by different killers.

I think in the cases of Liz and Kate that there is such evidence.

Meaning, a different killer for each murder, or two killers involved in each murder?

And as the Police Code also states "circumstantial evidence has often been found to produce a strong assurance of the prisoner's guilt."

Very few murders are actually witnessed, and few are confessed to, so in most of the remaining murder cases the prosecution compiles a list of circumstantial evidence to go to trial.

[Michael W Richards]

"Circumstantial evidence is that which may be inferred from particular actions, or from the circumstances, which either usually or necessarily attend a given condition of fact." Police Code page 42

What part can circumstantial evidence play in ripperology? Can we infer from their actions that Kate and Liz had arranged to meet someone on the night of their deaths? Can we assume that more than one person was involved in the killings from the witness reports. For example. How much can we rely on such evidence? I think in the cases of Liz and Kate that there is such evidence. And as the Police Code also states "circumstantial evidence has often been found to produce a strong assurance of the prisoner's guilt."

Best wishes
C4

In some cases circumstantial evidence can supercede the value brought in by the physical evidence alone c4, I agree. Many times the circumstantial evidence is in the form of witness statements and this is where I believe Ripperologists should be cautious....a statement that seems to bring to light a seemingly important clue or has great bearing on a timeline is important, the source that provides it even more so. For example;

-Cross's statement
-Schwartz's statement
-Packer's Statement
-Diemshutz's statement
-Lawende's statement
-Hutchinson's Statement

These witnesses made statements that would have great importance in the investigations if true. Question is...are they?

The witness credibility, or any perceived benefit the statement might offer the witness needs to be factored. My best example of that is Louis Diemshitz and Israel Schwartz..Israel suggests that the victim was engaged in a struggle with an unknown person minutes before being found dead, Louis says he discovered the body when he arrived at 1am. There we have 2 seemingly important statements with respect to possible suspect and Time of Discovery.

A closer look reveals that Israel was friend of William Wess's, of the Arbeter Fraint based in the yard, and Fanny Mortimer who was at her door from 12:50until 1am did not see or hear anyone approaching at 1am.

Who is more credible...a witness with nothing to hide or protect, or one that has?

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

You certainly seem to give Fanny Mortimer's statement a great deal of weight. You are aware are you not that she had a sick husband and five children at the time? We might want to take her times with a grain of salt rather than the word of God.

c.d.

[curious4]

Hello, Curious,

This is a very interesting point. Circumstancial evidence sometimes gets a bad rap, but in cold cases it is often all we have to rely on (and these murder cases are the coldest of all, perhaps)-- the difficult part is realizing what IS evidence, what is a solid inference, and what is mere speculation. For example, there is more evidence that Francis Thompson shaved with a scalpel -- he wrote this in a letter-- than there is for speculating that Vincent Van Gogh could have ferried back and forth from France to England in the autumn of 1888.

Complicating the Ripper case is that much of the offical documentation is missing, and interpreting what we have left is sometimes difficult.

I agree that Kate and Liz seemed to be expecting to meet someone, judging from their dress and attitude upon leaving. Liz certainly was planning on "walking out" with someone, and was seen doing so.
Kate getting drunk enough to imitate a fire-engine and be arrested for it has puzzled me. Was she pretending, aiming on a safe place for the night? Then why leave before the night was over, and seem concerned about the time?

What other things are reasonable deductions or inferences?

Hello PcDunn

I agree with you about Kate, going out into danger when she was safe is odd and points to a strong motive for doing so. That I think is circumstantial evidence. That I also believe she was not as drunk as she seemed is speculation. The behaviour of Liz and Kate implies that they had "dates" and I do wonder about Polly's "new" hat and that she refused to go back to the lodging house with her friend - speculation again. Kelly's "friend" (I do believe Hutch) - did her manner towards him show that she knew him - or at least had met him before? On the fence there, but leaning towards circumstantial evidence.

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

For me, circumstantial evidence is something very interesting that can point in a specific direction, but cannot in any case constitute a clue or a proof. They help supporting clues, but otherwise, they are useless.

Examples: suspect location at the time of the murder, anatomical knowledge, mysterious disappearance in November 1888.

Just because you have a Mafia expert marksman in Dallas in November 1963, doesn't make him JFK's shooter.

Hello Sir John (sorry for previous mistake)

The fact that a mafia hit man was in the area wouldn't be enough, but if he was seen checking the President's route might be something, but not quite enough.

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

Right so, a piece of information which does not directly point to guilt, but is consistent with guilt, is viewed as circumstantial.
One circumstance will not make a case as their could be alternate explanations, but several circumstances all pointing to the same conclusion will make a case. In fact this is how the prosecution compiles their case against the accused.



Presently, the bulk of what we discuss is circumstantial evidence.

- Take a man fleeing away from Mitre Sq. with blood on his clothes - this is circumstantial as he claims to be a butcher, or doctor.

- In his pocket is a knife - also circumstantial, a man carrying a knife was common.

- In his hand he was carrying a piece of bloodstained apron - circumstantial, he claims he picked it up off the street.

Individually these points are all circumstantial, but taken together a case could be made against this person.



Liz had been with someone, possibly more than one that night.
Kate may have been heading to meet someone, but how did she know she was going to be taken to jail that evening, then how would she know if she would be released at 1:00 am? (wasn't that the gaolers choice?).
Also Kate could have been heading towards her daughters, south of the river.



I don't know if you are talking about several people involved in one killing, or several murders committed by different killers.



Meaning, a different killer for each murder, or two killers involved in each murder?



Very few murders are actually witnessed, and few are confessed to, so in most of the remaining murder cases the prosecution compiles a list of circumstantial evidence to go to trial.

Hello Wickerman

Might have known you'd pick me up on being unclear :-). I meant more than one involved in each killing. Leaning towards only one actual killer, though.

Kate heading for her daughter's home? That hadn't struck me but it is always a possibility and puts a completely different light on things. Was she concerned about the time because turning up on her daughter's doorstep at three a.m. wouldn't be popular. (Of course her daughter had moved, but she might have hoped to get her new address from a neighbour). That is speculation. And presumably what she was discussing with a man a short time later wasn't her daughter's new address - although it could have been. "She's living in Mitre Square now, I'll walk with you." Could be argued, I suppose.

Yes, most of what we have is circumstantial, which is why it is so easy to fall into speculation. It's a very thin line!

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

In some cases circumstantial evidence can supercede the value brought in by the physical evidence alone c4, I agree. Many times the circumstantial evidence is in the form of witness statements and this is where I believe Ripperologists should be cautious....a statement that seems to bring to light a seemingly important clue or has great bearing on a timeline is important, the source that provides it even more so. For example;

-Cross's statement
-Schwartz's statement
-Packer's Statement
-Diemshutz's statement
-Lawende's statement
-Hutchinson's Statement

These witnesses made statements that would have great importance in the investigations if true. Question is...are they?

The witness credibility, or any perceived benefit the statement might offer the witness needs to be factored. My best example of that is Louis Diemshitz and Israel Schwartz..Israel suggests that the victim was engaged in a struggle with an unknown person minutes before being found dead, Louis says he discovered the body when he arrived at 1am. There we have 2 seemingly important statements with respect to possible suspect and Time of Discovery.

A closer look reveals that Israel was friend of William Wess's, of the Arbeter Fraint based in the yard, and Fanny Mortimer who was at her door from 12:50until 1am did not see or hear anyone approaching at 1am.

Who is more credible...a witness with nothing to hide or protect, or one that has?

Hello Michael

I would put witness statements in the category of evidence, not circumstantial evidence. Unless you count the witness as saying they judged the time by the fact that the pub had closed. I do give credence to the statements because the police did at the time. They were on the spot and in a position to decide which witnesses were credible and reliable. Although I 'm sure you disagree :-).

Best wishes
C4

[Wickerman]

Hello Wickerman

Might have known you'd pick me up on being unclear :-). I meant more than one involved in each killing. Leaning towards only one actual killer, though.

Sorry Gwyneth, I really wasn't sure

Kate heading for her daughter's home? That hadn't struck me but it is always a possibility and puts a completely different light on things.

Yes, another poster offered a map showing a likely route from Bishopsgate station to the daughters address south of the river - for the life of me I can't remember who the poster was.

And presumably what she was discussing with a man a short time later....

Well, if the woman seen by Lawende & Co. wasn't Kate then....

Yes, most of what we have is circumstantial, which is why it is so easy to fall into speculation. It's a very thin line!

Exactly, the bulk is circumstantial, and as such there can be more than one explanation for any incident or series of incidents.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

You certainly seem to give Fanny Mortimer's statement a great deal of weight. You are aware are you not that she had a sick husband and five children at the time? We might want to take her times with a grain of salt rather than the word of God.

c.d.

Hi cd,

Fanny Mortimer had a view of the street off and on for 30 minutes between 12:30 and 1... a time which some critical allegations were made, by Israel and by Louis. fanny had no connection with the club, had nothing to hide, and dose not suffer decreased believability to a preexisting reputation. the men at the Berner Club were believed to be Anarchists by the police, not people who you would automatically trust to tell the truth about a murder on their property.