What criteria should a suspect meet?

[Errata]

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?

[protohistorian]

I would say male, not known for his intelligence, unmarried,and it is just me but I would not assume adult. Otherwise my opinions are largely as they were. Dave

[Barnaby]

Clearly, any suspect had to be alive and presumably in London at the time.

You just excluded some of the most popular suspects!

[Errata]

You just excluded some of the most popular suspects!

Yes... as big of a fan as I am of the theory that the murders were committed by Ulysses S. Grant, I can't in good conscience suggest him as a viable suspect.

But what makes a suspect? I would say that Kosminski makes a terrible suspect, except that evidently 20 years on someone thought he did it. Except their reasoning was highly unsound. Victorian even... Masturbation never made a serial killer. He was evidently a paranoid schizophrenic, and despite threatening his sister with a knife, he was considered a harmless imbecile. In my estimation, a non-functional paranoid schizophrenic is a lousy choice for a serial killer. Especially a non violent one. Is there a reason we cannot dismiss a suspect that was identified by an official? Do we assume they knew something we don't? Given the almost commonplace occurrence of serial killers today, isn't it fair to say we know things they didn't?

But could a famous person get away with this? Did he have to have medical knowledge? Does he have to fit the description of either Lawende or Schwartz? I'm curious as to how people construct a case for a suspect. What are the criteria? What building blocks need to be there?

[Rubyretro]

I think that my most important criteria is someone that we can actually place at a crime scene. There must have been very many 'dodgy' men in London at the time, but we can't accuse them of having anything to do with the Ripper murders unless we can link them definitely to at least one of the killings.

We know that the murderer was able to fade into the 'street scene', and was able to get prostitutes to go with him to a quiet place...(although they must have been wary because of the murders) so I think that he was certainly an ordinary looking East End man, with an unthreatening manner, and possibly a
'familiar face' in the area. I would throw out famous people, rich toffs, and
raving lunatics -and blood stained butchers !

I think that he would have to live somewhere in the centre of the murder sites -because this is the case with most serial killers, according to studies.
For the same reason, I would put him in the 25-35 age group as being the most likely.

[The Good Michael]

Errata,

So.... you created this thread because you don't like Kosminski. Wow. Get over it. You don't want the murderer to have been a Jew. We get that. I'm really hoping it wasn't a Catholic half Albanian-Sicilian-half German raised in Yugolslavia that did it because it would mean that all Albanian-Sicilian-Germans from Yugolslavia are evil serial killers. Who really gives a rat's arse? If you identify yourself first as a human being, you don't worry so much about that kind of thing.

Mike

[Errata]

Errata,

So.... you created this thread because you don't like Kosminski. Wow. Get over it. You don't want the murderer to have been a Jew. We get that. I'm really hoping it wasn't a Catholic half Albanian-Sicilian-half German raised in Yugolslavia that did it because it would mean that all Albanian-Sicilian-Germans from Yugolslavia are evil serial killers. Who really gives a rat's arse? If you identify yourself first as a human being, you don't worry so much about that kind of thing.

Mike

Wow... feel better? I used Kosminski as an example because I had commented on it before. The actual circumstance of creating this thread if you are really that invested in it was that I was trying to figure out something on Levy, looked at the list of suspects, and wondered how Carrol, Albert Victor, Chapman and Jill the Ripper were still considered suspects.

At what point does Carrol come off the list? Or Albert Victor? Has modern history shown that Chapman is vanishingly unlikely to have so drastically changed method and motive? Is there a valid argument for the Ripper being a woman?

If it eases your troubled mind, I actually do understand why Kosminski is considered a suspect. I merely disagree. I don't have any idea who it was, and am not entirely sure what the accepted suspect criteria is. I realize that a great deal of it comes down to personal choice, so I am asking. What makes a suspect a suspect? What do you look for? Do you start with criteria and find a suspect who matches, or vice versa?

So, on the plus side, thanks for not being a bigot and all, and I will seriously look into the possibility that I am in fact one, but this thread is really about trying gain a skill set. So feel free to contribute, but if you want to tell me more about my moral failings for disliking the idea that it was Jew, I suggest you do so in private.

[auspirograph]

Means, Motive and Opportunity

I don't have any idea who it was, and am not entirely sure what the accepted suspect criteria is. I realize that a great deal of it comes down to personal choice, so I am asking. What makes a suspect a suspect? What do you look for? Do you start with criteria and find a suspect who matches, or vice versa?

Hi Errata,

I think this is a great idea for a thread, and it's a question that is consistently asked. In my view the expression, 'means, motive and opportunity' is a fair check of prospective Whitechapel murder suspects. Afterall, what is an unsolved series of murders without suspects and Scotland Yard certainly considered many.

There's a reasonable summary of the approach here though it relates to US criminal law and conditions in Victorian London were different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_motive,_and_opportunity

Kosminski is an interesting suspect and I tend to agree with you for different reasons as his status is emphasized with secondary sources; being Anderson's subsequent unofficial writings and Swanson's marginalia. The only known official report to name him is Macnaghten's memo and that draws attention to lack of substantial evidence for any suspect considered by Scotland Yard. The case of Ostrog was dismissed conclusively for instance by Philip Sugden as lacking opportunity.

Witness statements can be notoriously unreliable and at this remove in time, the Whitechapel murder official reports on sightings were at the police's own admission, lacking in substance, contradictory and not useful for the purpose of clear identification.

I think that the official case files, supplemented with supporting secondary sources, is perhaps the most reliable approach with the historical Jack the Ripper. There is no better reference for that than "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook" by Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner which outlines with informed commentary the status of available suspect sources generated during the original police investigation.

[Errata]

Witness statements can be notoriously unreliable and at this remove in time, the Whitechapel murder official reports on sightings were at the police's own admission, lacking in substance, contradictory and not useful for the purpose of clear identification.

Awesome. This gets to the heart of it. Witnesses can be unreliable, officials can be out of touch, psychiatry is in it's infancy, there is racism, class-ism, and a bizarre and rigid moral code.

Clearly mean motive and opportunity separates the wheat from the chaff, but that still seems like a lot of people. How do you choose "I believe this witness but not that one?" or "I believe this official but not that one" Is there any benefit to trying to see things from the perspective of Victorian England, or do we assume that since we know quite a bit more about serial killers now, that we cannot accept Victorian reasons for supposition?

For example. Butchers were suspected. But I would think that butchers are far too accustomed to rendering animals with massive strength. I would think that a butcher would have a wicked learning curve, moving from beheadings and accidental dismemberment to a more delicate touch. But it is a valid assumption that a butcher could walk around in blood stained clothing without notice. I find it hard to come down on one side or the other. So how do you choose between seemingly contradictory methods or behaviours?

[babybird67]

hi Errata

I'm really enjoying your thread.

For me, the suspect should be male, local, around twenties or thirties I think. I don't accept the medical/butcher connection. I think the suspect would have blended in with his local surroundings and I think he was probably known to the local community (not as the Ripper, but as someone they would never have suspected).

As for how do we chose between conflicting information and testimony? We have to be aware of bias. Nothing is free of it. Everything is tainted by it. Impossible to escape it even in ourselves so the best course of action is to be aware of it and guard against it. Always ask why? Why would this person/source think or say that? Are there any motives for lying? Any other reason the information might not be strictly accurate?

In the end we just have to make our own minds up.

take care

Jen x

[harry]

The suspect has to be placed at the scene of the crime.As the ripper murders were of a kind where both victim and murderer would have both been together at the time of killing,then eye witness or strong circumstancial evidence would be a neccessity,except of course in the case of confessional murder.

[Errata]

The suspect has to be placed at the scene of the crime.As the ripper murders were of a kind where both victim and murderer would have both been together at the time of killing,then eye witness or strong circumstancial evidence would be a neccessity,except of course in the case of confessional murder.

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. He didn't see them go into the courtyard. For all Lawende knows, he solicited her, she refused, she walks into the courtyard alone and meets the Ripper. So while the police would certainly want to talk to this guy, He's not necessarily the Ripper. Also, she has her hand on his chest. While not necessarily pushing him away, it is a universal "stop" gesture. Seductive touches are typically to a man's arms, hands, face, even waist. So if she isn't soliciting, and has already turned him down, how does he follow her into the courtyard without her getting highly alarmed?

Because we are 120 years removed from the events, we can't ask questions, or get clarification. Inevitably, there is a constant stream of "What Ifs" at every turn. It seems to me that in order to lock in on a suspect, a person has to shut down the "what ifs" at some point. How do you do that?

[babybird67]

the what ifs are what keep us going lol

now you see I read the hand on the chest gesture completely differently. I see it as accepting. I see them together, calm, with her almost leaning on him, almost like lovers. I may be completely wrong, but I feel if she was refusing/pushing him away, there would have been noise/altercation, a little like the Liz Stride incident before.

Isnt it interesting how we can see the same event in such totally different ways?

Jen x

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Errata,

I don't think any two suspects can be judged on the same criteria. I favor Charles Le Grand because he has far more circumstancial evidence against him than does any other suspect. In any event, more evidence that strikes me as being relevant. A different researcher might consider some of this same evidence exculpatory. A Kosminskian has a luxury of being able to point to Anderson and Swanson and say two of the men at the fore of the investigation cashed their chips with Kosminski, even though there appears to be absolutely nothing else in the way of evidence, circumstancial or otherwise, that points to Kosminski as the Ripper. And although Bury is a second tier suspect at best, his supporters can point to him as a bonafide knife murderer, which is not possible in the case of most other suspects. So, in short, it would be nigh on impossible to get the regular posters of this board to agree to the same set of criteria, except in the most generic sense (the Ripper was male and must of course been in London on the nights of the murder).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Errata]

So, in short, it would be nigh on impossible to get the regular posters of this board to agree to the same set of criteria, except in the most generic sense (the Ripper was male and must of course been in London on the nights of the murder).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

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

As I've said, I don't have a favored suspect, and this is why. I certainly feel some suspects have more merit than others. In the end though, without additional information I end up dismissing almost every name on the list. And maybe I am right to do so, but maybe not. It seems as though most people here are more suspect oriented. I guess I am more behaviorally oriented? Something like that.

In a traditional investigation, police would identify the means motive and opportunity, determine who had access to the weapon and who fits the motive, and in the end they arrive at a suspect. Clearly not possible in this case at this remove. So we have this list of names that we work backwards from. Where does list of names come from? Druitt, Kosminski, Chapman, these come from the investigators. So I understand that. Jill the Ripper? Lewis Carroll? Where on earth did these come from? And if everyone agrees that the Ripper was male, and that Carroll was in no way involved, why are they still on the list? If Ostrog (?) was clearly not in town at the time, why is he on the list? Is my ghost of Ulysses S. Grant going to be on the list?

If there are no accepted criteria, then how does anyone get off the list? How is anyone ever eliminated as a suspect?