Criteria for plausibility

[Wade Aznable]

TomTom,
I actually found this thread and your question extremely useful. Actually, it was a question I myself have been asking myself for a while, especially when I stumble upon something I do NOT like in the field - Masonic Conspiranoids, Vincent Van Sloughs, Star Lautrekkers and Walter Scarpettas. Come to think of it, there's a lot I don't like!

The "plausibility" criteria you and others listed in this thread make a suspect much more serious than others. For instance, as far as I'm concerned, and to mention two of the people who wrote in this very thread, Tom Wescott's and Fisherman's suspects (who, if I remember properly, are respectively Le Grand and Cross/Lechmere? I apologize if I'm mistaken), in my view are both really, extremely plausible suspects, regardless of my personal opinion - and of my personal "suspect".

Sorry for the ranting and the double post!
W

[Wade Aznable]

Jonathan,
thank you very much for your kind and extensive explanation, I'll get all 2012's Ripperologist as soon as possible to see the original material.

Wade

[Fisherman]

Iīd protest against that view, TomTom - the thread is a perfectly sensible one, and one that must be perused every now and then. I only try to point to the circumstance that we have, over the years, more or less forgotten that we may try a strictly practical approach to the identification matter at times. If we never try to make use of the evidence in that fashion, we will potentially miss out very badly on useful opportunities to find our man.

All the best,
Fisherman

[TomTomKent]

I had no idea this thread would cause this kind of discussion. I expected a few people to point out where I was rong, nudge me in a more sensible direction and be done. Four pages later Im impressed at how much more sensible the rest of you are than me...

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

" that was a nice long post. I'm not sure what you were going on about though."

Then I will explain it to you! I think that peopleīs personal preferences will govern what they deem good criteria of plausibility, meaning that the thread wonīt take us anywhere practically speaking, whereas I think there is every reason to believe that we do not necessarily have to settle for merely a theoretical discussion about plausibility levels. There is useful, tangibale evidence, directly connected to the murder cases - instead of a connection to the very differing hunches of the different policemen involved - that we can look at instead.

"I think the original question would be on what grounds SHOULD a writer name a suspect, and on what criteria would he be a viable suspect."

It would! Which is why I said that you chose useful criteria. But the approach as such is a bit lofty, as far as Iīm concerned; that was what I tried to convey in my post. Plus, of course, when we try to do it this way, we will - instead of opening up new possibilities and areas of research - minimize the focus. And that is only good as long as it works. Problem is, it has not worked the last 124 years, has it? And one of the reasons would be that this suggested approach of yours actually disregards a guy like Lechmere.

" I would put Cross about in the same category as Hutchinson."

I would do that too, practically speaking. They are the same type of bid, but one good and one bad such.

"The difference is, there's a rather wide agreement in the field that Hutchinson was suspicious, to one degree or another, whereas there's an equal amount of agreement that Cross did not in any way behave suspiciously. "

Ah - but that is about to change, I think. Anyways, NONE of the people that have been chosen as candidates because they were "suspicious" have proven applicable in the end, in spite of all that hard work that has gone into researching them.
But Lechmere is another thing! For here, research HAS turned up that he used an alias. Research HAS turned up that the murders were strewn around paths he would arguably have used on a daily basis, more or less,. Research HAS turned up that he was a societal descender, coming from a rich family, and quite possibly feeling justified to harbour a wish to get back at the low-lifes among which he lived his life. Etcetera.

When it comes to Hutchinson, not a iota has surfaced - if we are to listen to the so called Hutchinsonians. If you listen to me, however, it is practically proven that Toppy was the witness, meaning that we know a lot about the man - nothing of which is even remotely suspicious.

So the two may well have been looked upon the wrong way in both cases. The "suspicious" guy was seemingly the good guy, whereas the "good" guy was quite possibly the one that SHOULD have been suspected!

"As for your contention that a suspect should be linked to specific 'murder spots', then you've once again got Hutch, along with Barnett, Le Grand, and a host of others."

... none of whom can be even loosely connected to more than one site at best, whereas Lechmere ticks the Tabram box, the Nichols box, the Chapman box, the Stride box, the Kelly box, the MacKenzie box and the Pinchin Street torso box. I make that seven, just like the deadly sins ...

All the best, Tom!
Fisherman

[Michael W Richards]

I personally think Charles Cross is a more viable suspect than Michael Ostrog, but would also have to concede that Michael Ostrog was a near contemporaneous suspect, whereas I've seen no proof that Cross was.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

Just a semantic point on the above....anyone at liberty in London was more viable than Ostrog because we now know that he was in jail at the time of the murders. Who was named in contemporary terms means very little without evidence to support the claim.

That he was named even though incarcerated seems to indicate that some "named" suspects were mere guesses, not the result of evidence obtained through investigative efforts.

Cheers Tom

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

A very nice analogy. The pieces from five or more jigsaw puzzles all mixed up in one box.

Hi Tom,

The Easter Bunny is a more viable suspect than anyone thus far named.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fish, that was a nice long post. I'm not sure what you were going on about though. I think the original question would be on what grounds SHOULD a writer name a suspect, and on what criteria would he be a viable suspect, versus a Van Gogh kind of thing, which based on the feedback the author has received, is not considered by many Casebookers as being viable.

I personally think Charles Cross is a more viable suspect than Michael Ostrog, but would also have to concede that Michael Ostrog was a near contemporaneous suspect, whereas I've seen no proof that Cross was. I would put Cross about in the same category as Hutchinson. Both were witnesses who are now viewed by suspicion by modern commentators. The difference is, there's a rather wide agreement in the field that Hutchinson was suspicious, to one degree or another, whereas there's an equal amount of agreement that Cross did not in any way behave suspiciously.


As for your contention that a suspect should be linked to specific 'murder spots', then you've once again got Hutch, along with Barnett, Le Grand, and a host of others.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[moonbegger]

Hello MB. I think you have identified a serious problem. We have a jigsaw puzzle with:

1. Many pieces missing.

2. Some extraneous pieces that should be thrown back.

3. The BIGGEST problem: I believe that the lovely scene depicted on the box cover has NOTING to do with the pieces contained therein.

And there lies the rub.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn ,

Ha , Ha , i unfortunately totally agree .. especially with number 3 .

moonbegger ,

[Jonathan H]

To Wade

What I meant was that 'Aberconway', the nickname for the unofficial version of Mac's Report, or memo-- so named after Lady Christabel Aberconway, his daughter who preserved it -- was mostly, though not entirely published in 1965 by Tom Cullen in 'Autumn of Terror'.

It took until a recent issue of 'Ripperologist' magazine for the entire source to be published, though the relevant sections had been available for decades. Nevertheless, the full version contained bits and pieces which were also pertinent -- and arguably backed my 'case disguised' theory.

The filed, official version of Mac's Report, which is significantly different, first appeared in 1966 in Robin Odell's 'Jack the Ripper: In Fact and Fiction'. At least the relevant sections about the suspects.

In 1975, Don Rumbelow gained access to the complete version of this source and published it in 'The Complete Jack the Ripper', an excellent work -- which openly wondered in what order these two, non-identical twins were composed?

Part of the entrenched, arguably redundant, paradigm is the assumption that 'Aberconway' is a rejected draft and the official version is Mac's considered and definitive opinion. That the official version was known to other senior police figures.

There is no evidence for this assumption. It is a long-standing inference, not unreasonable, but which can be shown to be probably mistaken (eg. Littlechild has never heard of 'Dr D', Abberline says he knows but all of his information about the drowned suspect is wrong, Anderson makes no comment what-so-ever about Druitt yet believes in a parallel deceased suspect -- who isn't -- and so on).

More likely is that the official version was mothballed in 1894 and seen by nobody until 1966, while the unofficial version was composed in 1898 and is the definitive opinion for Macnaghten had that opinion disseminated to the public by credulous cronies (a politically bipartisan press offensive too, as Major Griffiths was a Tory and George Sims was a Liberal).

Macnaghten's chapter in his 1914 memoirs, 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper', is clearly his own adaptation of 'Aberconway' -- and therefore the de-facto third version of the same document. It is very instructive for what he leaves in and for what he leaves out, and for what he confirms and for what he debunks.

It is, in my opinion, Mac's definitive testimony about the case because, 1) it is his only public opinion under his own knighted name, and 2) because of the way it more accurately matches other primary sources than its twin predecessors regarding Scotland Yard's 1888 to 1891 Ripper investigation -- and about Montague Druitt.

[Wade Aznable]

The other versions, which we could not access until 1959 and 2012

Hello Jonathan,
I haven't been following the boards very much, lately, and this "2012 version" you mention intrigues me a lot - but I know nothing about it.
Would you please give some detail about it? (IE, where can it be seen, when and how did it surface, and so forth).

Thank you in advance,
Wade

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"I say he must have one of the following - 1) Contemporary suspicion against him, or 2) Something that occurred in his subsequent history (after 1888) that would force us to look at him, such as implication in similar crimes. If neither is going for him, then I'm hard pressed to see how he could be called suspect."

Hi Tom!

"Criteria for Plausibility", that is the name of the thread. And in that context, you make a good case. Being among the contemporarily suspected candidates adds to the plausibility, generally speaking. The same goes for a subsequent criminal record.

Then again, what happens when we take a look at my favourite suspect, Charles Lechmere? Was he suspected at the time? No. Do we know of a criminal record on his behalf after 1888? No.

But we DO know that he can be geographically tied to the murder spots in a manner than no other suspect comes even close to. A few of the other candidates can be knit to one (1) murder spot, and thatīs it. Kosminsky? No ties to any of the spots. Druitt? Same thing. James Kelly?
I could go on for the longest time here.

And if Lechmere was the man who did it, then what does that tell us? Exactly - it tells us that he killed a number of women WITHOUT getting detected and forming any criminal record. Does that point to a man who would get on record for a number of offenses afterwards? I donīt think so; far from showing a propensity to get nailed for his deeds, he had instead proven an ability to stay away from the rap sheet.

So, Tom, much as your two criteria are quite useful, we can see that if we use them to do the sorting, then Lechmere would easily slip under that radar. Once again, if you take my meaning...

Does that mean that you are wrong? No - the criteria you have chosen ARE good indicators of "plausibility". The problem, though, is that they are less useful to point to culpability. They represent more of the picture you have of the Ripper.

Others would have chosen other criteria, like for example psychological issues. Some would say that we are looking for somebody who lived on his own. Some would say that we need to find a regular user of prostitutes. These are all more specific demands, less general than yours, but they also have a good deal going for them. Plus they are all also related to individual choices for what the Ripper would have been like.

My hunch is that this is a thread that makes for god discussion material, whereas it runs a tremendous risk of becoming a showcase of the many pictures out there of what the killer would probably have been like. If we manage to convince ourselves that he must have been of Mongolian descent, then Mongolian descent will be the best criterion of plausibility, by far.

But I think most of us would agree that too many too interesting and useful suspects would go lost with that approach.

To me, the same thing goes for your criteria, Tom. The killer may well have stayed undetected by the police, and likewise there are double possibilities for him staying away from forming a criminal record after the murders; he may never have perpetrated a crime again after 1888, or - perhaps more credible - he may have prolonged his record of staying undetected.

To me, the best criteria of plausibility is whatever we can find in direct relation to the murders that points to potential guilt. If we can point to a suspect having a connection to the murder spots, then that is a very good criterion for plausibility. If we can point to a suspect not telling the police the truth, then that too is a very good criterion for plausibility.

These are things that contribute practically to pointing a finger at somebody, whereas criteria like personality type only function in an ideological manner. In the choice of who was the knife killer between a thin, anemic frightened-looking young girl, well dressed and with a good background, and a terrifying, crew-cut bully with a rap sheet as long as the Nile, the "ideological" criteria of plausibility are only interesting up til the stage when we find bloodstains on the girlsīhands. Practical evidence always trumphs ideological stances - as well as "plausibility".

The best,
Fisherman

[Jonathan H]

To Tom

Sure, in 'Aberconway' Mac even hints that this might have been what brought 'Kosminski' into the frame (though I think he was actually interpolating the Druitts there too).

The point is that in investigating Farquharason's 'doctrine' it became the police chief's too.

But on what evidence?

What made the family so sure even though the McKenzie and Coles' murders seemed to be by the same hand to?

Yet they and the MP remained 'adamant'.

Why ...? Why not grab at those quite thick straws for all they were worth?

Apparently to only hear the tale that Farquharason told was to be very impressed, to be, as weer a 'good many people', convinced.

Why?

Macanghten does not tell us in his memoirs. Just the bland claim of information received 'some years after' which was so hot it swept aside all other suspects. In fact, Mac is so assured and so smooth he makes no effort to tell a story where the reader could agree. Unlike Anderson he does not strain to overwhelm us, so conerned is he with not, as he puts it 'treading on any corned toes'.

That is why I theorise that the 'North Country Vicar' is about Druitt because it has a bombshell detail that, in just telling it verbally would indeed stop Victorian bourgeoiese dead in their respectable tracks -- the gentleman fiend had confessed to a priest.

It's a suspiciously too-comforting Christian tale of near-redemption; of a madman recognising the evil within himself and annihilating it, ala the ending of Jekyll and Hyde -- and to some extent Dorian Gray too.

I think, nevertheless, Macnaghten thoroughly checked Druitt's movements, his habits, and found no alibi, and that he really had confessed all to a clergyman. He interviewed that cleric, off the grid so to speak.

On the other hand ... we are not Victorians.

With what we can glean about serial killers Druitt does not strike us as being like ones we know about today, not because he was a barrister (Ted Bundy anynone?) or a respetable and successful member of his class and community (John Wayne Gacy?) and not because he had no prior criminal record (Jeffrey Dhamer) but because he confessed to a clergyman without having been taken into custody first.

After these monsters have been arrested they often talk and work with all sorts of people in prison, inlcuding chaplains.

But not before.

Plus, 'epileptic mania' is not a real condition and that is what the Vicar's Ripper suffered from.

Victorians thought that if yiou suffered from this 'condition' you could commit grotesque homicide, completely impulsively and randomly, and yet not remember doing it (Sims' Ripper exhibits classic epileptical/maniacal symptoms) while in the grip of an amnesiac 'seizure'.

If Druitt thought he was the fiend because he was having blackouts and was going insane, then they may have all had it round the wrong way: not that he was insane and thus committing murders -- in some kind of fugue state -- bur rather that he was insane because he thought he was committing the murders.

It's like everybody connected with this suspect thought they were living in 'The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' for real: the 'murderer', his family, the MP, the police chief, the Major, and the famous writer -- the latter who never wrote a classic as memorable, but who is still read, ironically, for his Hydish Ripper.

The theme of a respectable gent with some knd of monstrous -- and mitigating -- mental illness runs through all the Druitt sources, and it strikes some as quite wrong about real serial murderers of strangers, who have not yet been cornered by police.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jonathan. You say Druitt is unique because suspicion started with his own people, and not with Mac. But couldn't this be so with the other suspects?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

To Tom

Good point, mate.

The reason I do not agree is because

1. Druitt as the Ripper does not begin with Mac, unlike 'Kosminski' and Ostrog (in the meagre extent record), he begins among his own (Tory) people/family in Dorset, though I appreciate that brother William lived in Bournemouth and Montie in London.

2. Mac's 'third' version of his 'Report'/'memo', the 1914 memoir chapter, is essentially accurate when measured against other sources. eg. Tumblety, Chapman, Kosminski and Ostrog are nothing, the police of 1888 were clueless about Druitt and for years after too, until information was received. He had never been institutionalised and therefore was not an inavlid recluse and may well have worked for a living. The killer did not kill himself within mere hours of his 'awful glut'. I am the policeman who laid his 'ghost' to rest (eg. not Anderson).

I think you raise an interesting notion about 'most desperate'.

But apart from Mac's hyperbolic style, I do not see it as a fit for Druitt.

According to Mac, the un-named Druitt imploded because he was in a tormented state after Miller's Ct. but not, as Griffiths-Sims had told the public, in a tortured state where he could not function except to stagger to a river (all the way to Chiswick??)

Druitt had twenty-four hours -- maybe longer? -- to go home and subsequently vanish from among his 'own people', and then commit suicide, eg. not a 'shrieking, raving fiend'. He apeared normal for he was 'Protean'.

Tormented, not desperate, and certainly not cornered by a fast-closing police dragnet as is his fictitious counterpart will be: Sims' 'mad doctor' who only narrowly escapes arrest by drowning himself the Thames as the cops and the pals close in ...