What criteria should a suspect meet?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I agree with the ''universal stop gesture'', all the hallmarks of a female rejecting any further close contact, without undue panic.
A seaman mayby, [ note description] who tried his luck with a tired and hungover Eddowes.?
Mayby he accepted the situation and moved off, and Eddowes then was accosted by someone observing that occurance , which could have been a carbon copy of Berner street, or even Hanbury street, not to mention a similar scenerio with Tabram, even possibily with Nichols [ note the time difference between Her friend Emily Holland talking to her, and her entering Bucks row....had she been with someone else prior to her meeting her killer?.
Was Jack the Ripper fueled by witnessing prostitute, and client.?
Regards Richard.

[Mortis]

Male, age 30-40, probably a butcher, short, gentleman from the outside (given that the victims followed him), hate for prostitutes or woman in general and with enough strength to overpower his victims. I would bet on prostitutes only. He probably lived somewhere in the center of the victim cites and with enough intelligence to avoid capture. In my opinion, he probably didn't communicate too much. Probably had some mental disorder

[Tom_Wescott]

What is a 'Viable' suspect?

If there is no accepted criteria (which i can totally buy) Who determines who a viable suspect is?

I applied for that job but haven't heard back yet. I'll tell you, my definition of a 'viable' suspect is one who was suspect by investigators at the time and who has yet to be cleared. Ostrog was investigated at the time, but has since been cleared, so he wouldn't be on the list. It's a rather short list...

Kosminski, Chapman, Le Grand, Druitt, Tumblety.

From this point, it comes down to each individual researcher reading all he can on these suspects and making up his own mind. Personally, I think Druitt can be taken right off the list, along with Tumblety and Chapman, for various reasons. Jonathan Hainsworth, Adam Went, and Stewart Evans, among others, would disagree with me. Because so little is at present known about Kosminski, there's not enough there to take him off the list. Regarding Le Grand, I'm slowly but surely writing the first book on him, so once that's out, I'm hoping it might be much easier for new students to pick a suspect.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Tom,
I don"t really see what evidence you have to remove Chapman from the list.
Its because he has not been able to be "cleared" or properly investigated that this convicted serial killer who lived in Whitechapel at the time, remains a strong suspect.
I also think that there must have been more to the incarceration of Thomas Cutbush in Broadmoor than what Macnaghten implied were minor offences.People didn"t then and don"t now get locked up for life in a hospital for the criminally insane like Broadmoor for "minor offences".
As for Kosminski,yes he was a police suspect but its very strange that he was freely able to walk his dog around Cheapside in the Autumn of 1889,seemingly free of police surveillance,that he never had any convictions for violence whatsoever,and that no crime that matched that of Mary Kelly was ever committed after November 1888, if he was her killer.
Best
Norma

[Abby Normal]

So, this is where I get frustrated. Is there any agreed upon suspect criteria? I am not especially suspect oriented, but every time I look closely at someone, I immediately pick the theory apart for various reasons.

Me, I'm a huge fan of the likelihood of a given scenario. And it's completely subjective. According to my own standards of what is likely or what makes sense, I've eliminated almost everybody. Which is fine, but every time I am certain it's not a particular person, someone is equally certain that it is. And while I think there are bad arguments for any given suspect, I realize that just because someone is suspected for a bad reason doesn't mean he didn't do it.

Clearly, any suspect had to be alive and presumably in London at the time. I think most would grant male, and most would grant adult. What else do you think is necessary? Locality? Anonymity? Take the personalities out of it. Is there someone who is too weird of a choice? Is it all instinct? If we knew none of these names, none of these stories, what would you see as a logical set of criteria? And does your own favorite match? Or do you base your criteria on your favorite?

Hi Errata
Great idea for a post. In general it seems one of the maincriteria for placing someone on the suspect list is how much "ink" they receive in terms of how much they are written about and/or discussed.

For me the main criteria is in general order of importance:
1.Were they suspects or at least persons of interest at the time
2.Were they in the east end at the time and local(familiar with the territory)
3.Were they proved capable of murder
4.Were there extenuating circumstances that have since come to light that bolsters or eliminates their viability as a suspect
5.What are the positive opinions of todays respected experts
6.Did they fit the witness descriptions

So for me viable candidates based on this criteria would be:
Chapman fits 1-6
Bury 1-6
James Kelly 1-6
George Hutchinson 2, 4-6

and to a lesser extent
Tumblety 1,2,5
Kosminski 1,2,5,6
Druitt 1,6

At this point these candidates seem to meet at least some of my criteria and I don't really consider anyone else. Chances are JtR was an unamed "unsub".

[harry]

Errata,
There is a case ongoing in the city where I live.A person found dead in her room.A person, through the media,admits he is suspect by police.Plenty of circumstantial evidence,but none that puts him in the room with her.
I favour George Hutchinson.A good circumstantial case put by authors Bob Hinton and Garry Roe,and by Ben with his excellent posts.Opportunity clearly established,but no evidence to place him in Kelly,s room.

[The Good Michael]

Wow! I am in complete agreement with Tom... nearly. Druitt straddles the line for me, but LeGrand I get, Kosminski because we can't remove him without knowing more, but I think James Kelly has to be added for the same reasons as Kosminski while being a known murderer and lunatic. Hutchinson? Ha.

Mike


So, the criteria of having been suspected at the time seems to clinch things... for me.

[Rubyretro]

QUOTE=Errata;166739]I think a problem I am having is possibly seeing too many scenarios. For example: I don't think Lawende lied about what he saw. I mean, he could have... but I just don't think he did. Assuming he was correct in his identification of Eddowes, it would seem that the man she was with was likely her killer. In theory the timing would be appropriate.

But here is how my brain sort of won't let this be. [B]He didn't see them go into the courtyard.[/QUOTE] [/B

]I'm totally with you on this one, Errata !
Lawende's Statement is a real conundrum for me, and I really can't make my mind up.
Like you, I don't think Lawende lied, but the fact is that he was not witnessing to seeing people that he knew -but two total strangers glimpsed in the dark, for a moment or two- and of course he didn't see them go into the Courtyard. He could only identify Catherine by the material of her skirt
and I wonder how good that identification might be ? I don't know many men that would register the pattern on a woman's skirt, and besides, he was looking at her male companion at the time. The skirt must have been ripped and covered with blood when Lawende attested that it was the same one
as worn by the woman he'd seen.

I think that, as the timing of Lawende's sighting was so very close to the time of the murder, the Police were already convinced that the couple were certainly Jack and Catherine and so Lawende was also convinced in advance
before being shown the skirt fabric. I think that he would have identified any
flowery material positively.

Without the couple being seen walking into Mitre square, a doubt exists, and the area was known for prostitution, and the courtyard no doubt regularly
used by prostitutes.

It would make sense to me that, instead of walking across the whole Square, with the nightwatchman awake with his door ajar -Jack & Eddowes could have come in from the other end of the Square, turned right, into the darkest spot, and Kate been killed immediately.

Having said all that -I still think that Lawende probably saw our couple...there's just a nagging doubt.

As to the hand on chest gesture, it could mean pushing away (even in a 'mock' way) or it could be intimate and sharing a joke. who knows ?
The woman seems to have felt comfortable with the man.

[Man Flex]

Just my opinion

From the evidence and witness statements that we have (just the facts), JTR was...

A white male, age 25-35 years, height 5'5 to 5'8 tall, medium build, wore a small moustache and spoke english.

Now the speculation starts...

He was familiar with Whitechapel and he knew of the very many warrens of alleyways and courtyards that he could hide in. For this reason he almost certainly he lived in the immediate area and probably lived due east of Mitre Square.

He was someone who didn't attract attention or suspicion to himself either from strangers or from those that knew him. He may have been known to his victims or at least a familiar face in the district and this too would have lessened any suspicion. He was possibly not a paranoid schizophrenic as he was able to converse so easily with his victims. At least on the outside he appeared to be a normal every day guy, who may even have been handsome and charming. Nevertheless he was a sociopath.

He was possibly in work (his clothes suggest that he was not in poverty) and that work may have involved using a knife regularly. When one considers what this man did to Mary Kelly I believe that he was used to such conditions - i.e. a slaughterhouse. The stench, the gore and the blood would have made any normal person retch. Today, farm animals are stunned before their throats are cut and they are then disembowelled. This man was simply recreating what he did every day and possibly had fantasised about doing this to a woman whilst at work.

Prostitutes were an easy target and he may have used them before.

These were not his first crimes and he made have spent time in prison for other minor offences such as theft.

There was possibly some sort of catalyst that led to the events of 1888.

He had a difficult childhood and was possibly abused by his mother.

The murders ceased possibly because he was arrested for some other crime (maybe even a domestic crime) or that he simply stopped perhaps due to a change in his personal life.

I have based these assumptions on many other serial killers that have been caught over the last 50 years.

[Errata]

So, the criteria of having been suspected at the time seems to clinch things... for me.

And I agree that anyone suspected at the time certainly deserves a fair amount of attention. But I almost feel that anyone suspected by the police at the time can be ruled out based on a lack of understanding of how serial killers work. (Almost) Clearly Victorians feared the mad. And given that mental illness was so poorly understood that makes sense. But we know now that anyone who is visibly unstable, someone who anyone could look at and say "this guy is clearly nuts" is terribly unlikely to be a serial killer.

Certain assumptions were made about the Jewish community. And given the difficulty of relations between the Jewish community and the police, that's not surprising. Many of the East End Jews fled police states, pogroms, government internment. Of course they don't trust the police. The police perceive this lack of trust to mean that the Jews will not cooperate with them. That they will hide the Ripper from them. And while I am certain it is true that the Jewish community would like to have as little to do with the police as possible, they are still human. They feared the mad as well. No man looks at Jack the Ripper and says "I am fine with him sleeping under my roof and occasionally being along with my wife and children". No landlord decides that the money from a man who guts people like a fish is worth his own safety. Certainly Jack the Ripper could be a Jew. Certainly he could be hiding in the Jewish community. But no one is hiding him. No one is protecting him.

The cops had nothing on the Co-ed Killer until Kemper turned himself in after the final crime. Bundy was so unbelievable as a killer that even after his confessions many people thought it had to be a terrible mistake. Dahmer managed to convince the police to give him back one of his victims who was begging for help. All of which is to say that if the police routinely cannot see it today, when we know so much more about it, what are the odds they saw it then?

So I guess my question is, does one apply modern standards? Do you say "it is almost impossible for them to find the Ripper without either physical evidence or catching him in the act, so therefor they could not have known."? Do you assume that despite questionable logic they came to the correct conclusions? Why do you trust the judgement of the Victorian police? I'm not saying it's wrong to do so, I'm just trying to understand what benefit there is to it.

[The Good Michael]

Errata,

I don't necessarily trust the police. Actually, I never really have, but that's neither here nor there. What I do think is that people were not just randomly suspected, and we even see how far the police went to protect poor Pizer and how they didn't place undo blame on Sadler or anyone else, so I think, overall, they were trying to catch this guy. As far as Jews protecting Jews. There is kind of a literal interpretation one can take, but I think it needs to be taken in a different way. All groups of people have distrusted other groups at one time or another and immigrants have always had something to fear from the police. I don't think there was a conscious effort to protect a killer by anyone save, perhaps family (if they had even the slightest doubt of guilt). Yet conscious or not, by not volunteering information for fear of self-incrimination about anything, in effect that is a protection of a possible suspect. We all have stories about police pulling us over (or friends) for one thing and finding another thing. It used to be inadmissible in the US, but now, if something is visible, at arm's length, some paraphenalia or if there are bottles of opened alcohol, you are busted, even though you were pulled over for a headlight being out. I think these poor immigrants, Jews and gentiles alike, were scared of locals who outnumbered (except in a few areas) and the police who, for the most part, represented the status quo.

Sorry for the ramble.

Mike

[jason_c]

"And I agree that anyone suspected at the time certainly deserves a fair amount of attention. But I almost feel that anyone suspected by the police at the time can be ruled out based on a lack of understanding of how serial killers work. (Almost) Clearly Victorians feared the mad. And given that mental illness was so poorly understood that makes sense. But we know now that anyone who is visibly unstable, someone who anyone could look at and say "this guy is clearly nuts" is terribly unlikely to be a serial killer."


Of the 3 main suspects only one was Jewish. One was middle/upper class. One had a criminal record. Possibly one or two were in an asylum previously. Only one was described as to be a lunatic. None of these indicate the police were focusing on a single "type". Perhaps apart from the fact all were described as having a hatred towrds women/prostitutes.

And when it comes to madness i think we can say JtR was hardly the most stable of individuals. He was clearly as mad as a hatter on some level.

[Rubyretro]

A good post, Mike..

[Edward]

Very interesting thread ...

I feel that the dates of the JTR murders, and the sudden end of the series holds a key to JTR’s identity. These compulsive acts occurred on specific times of the month and certain days of the week. It is hard for me to believe that the compulsion to kill overtook JTR on a schedule. The timing (schedule) of the murders most probably had to do with opportunity. It seems to me that another schedule was at work here (such as employment that removed the killer from the East End or otherwise occupied the killer).

Then, the sudden end to the series is puzzling. I can’t believe that a serial killer would wake up one day and feel that they have murdered enough women. It is hard for me to believe that such a killer would stop killing of their own volition. However, I look at the BTK serial killer in the USA, who committed a series of murders, then stopped killing for a number of years (without incarceration, etc.) then resumed killing at a much later date, and was finally apprehended.

As far as the police go, I have some degree of faith in the intuition of police officers. As the ones closest to the investigation of these crimes, they have intimate knowledge of the area, the inhabitants, etc. Having said that, I feel that the Victorian view of lunatics may have tainted their intuition. (JTR must have been a lunatic, look at what he did) The view at the time (for most people) seems to have been that all lunatics were wild-eyed, foaming at the mouth, etc. Our killer seems to have been able to gain enough confidence from the victims to get them alone in secluded places, and to have been able to blend in with the locals after the act.

A very interesting thread.

Best Regards, Edward

[Tom_Wescott]

Why Druitt isn't much of a suspect any more.

Good Michael...if you continue to agree with me like this you'll have to change your name to The Good and Wise Michael. As for Druitt, the reason I'm inclined to dismiss him is that our one official supporter of his, Macnaghten, clearly received utterly wrong information about Druitt, and as Macnaghten saw a medical hand in the murders, the primary reason he suspect Druitt in the first place was his reputed medical skill. As we know today, Druitt was no doctor, and had Macnaghten known that, he wouldn't have endorsed him so strongly as a suspect, thus Druitt loses his one and only contemporary supporter as the Ripper. Ostrog appears in the Macnaghten memoranda only because he was also wrongly believed to be a doctor and because it appears (to me at least) that Macnaghten confused details of Ostrog with Le Grand. Kosminski ALONE appears IN SPITE of the fact that he was not alleged to be a doctor. This is either to satisfy his superior (Anderson) or because the actual evidence against Kosminski (as opposed to mere gossip) forced Macnaghten's hand and compelled him to include him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott