Criteria for plausibility

[The Good Michael]

Sorry, but all this criteria is refutable.

Mike

[Tel]

Yo Tom, why '1) Contemporary suspicion against him, '?

Surely the chances of him never coming under suspicion are just as great, or greater, than the alternative.

I still think he was a Mr Nobody, certainly not one of the frequent celebs that are put forward.

[Simon Wood]

Hi TomTomKent,

Here are my bullet points -

• 1) [what evidence?]
• 2) [that's a lotta people.]
• 3) [what particular evidence might that be?]
• 4) [and nor will it ever be.]
• 5) [No.]

Regards,

Simon

[curious]

Not quite sure how to ask this with out being too vague, but if you were to establish general bullet point rules for your own personal opinions on what makes a suspect viable, or even remotely plausible what would they be?

My own, which are far from perfect would be:
1) to fit reasonably with established evidence.
2) to be "known and shown" to have been in the area for the period.
3) to have evidence connecting them to the case or reasonable cause to believe evidence may be found with continued research.
4) said evidence passes the Winnie the Pooh and Queen Victoria tests. Ie, if the case isbuilt upon vague assertions that Celebrity X might not be where established history places them, or isbased upon cyphers in a painting , novel, poem or play it must be shown these can be substantiated and can not be applied equally well to my benchmark celebrity and text. This has never been passed.
5) is there a reason to suspect the person was Jack, above anybody else?


Mine are lame.. what are yours?

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.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi, TomTom and Tom,

Never really thought about it specifically. I'd guess my telling you "it's a feeling I get . . . " would not be reassuring.

TomTom, your 1 would work, except there is almost nothing that is universally agreed upon as being evidence.

But it certainly works for me and what I see as "the facts"

Your 2 makes sense. But that leaves out William Henry Bury who lived nearby and had a pony and cart which could certainly put him in Whitechapel. He was my first favorite but does not seem so compelling now.

3 -- It is my understanding that there is no "evidence" that ties anyone to the case, so I'm not clear on what you would fit in here.

Perhaps, if you have suspects, you can use an example here.

4. absolutely!

5. A reason to suspect the person was Jack? even if not above all others. Yes. I'd say family suspecting would be a good start. Or Tom's number one reason, being a suspect at the time of the investigation.

However, I think it is possible the killer was never suspected by the police.


So, Tom, I am glad you made your two reasons 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.

or if not crimes, being institutionalized for a mental "breakdown" or committing suicide.

Despite Dennis Rader, I doubt that the killer responsible for the murders in Whitechapel just stopped forever, unless some stressor is found that ceased in the killer's life.

He could have become ill, died, or been institutionalized.

For me, it is never just one thing, but a stack of incidents, or characteristics that lead me to think this MIGHT be the right person. And I suspect that "stack" is what you are referring to in your first reason, isn't it TomTom? Fitting the evidence fairly well.

So, it's not really "feel" for me. It is how everything meshes together, like a tapestry or jigsaw puzzle, when a complete picture is forming and things make sense.

I look for patterns and clarity. Pretty vague too, I guess.

curious

[Scott Nelson]

3) He was, well, try Henry Defries. The case solution could be all your's. Hey, who said that before?

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[miss marple]

We need that, it might concentrate minds on the probable rather than the impossible.People waste hours on totally absurd famous candidates rather than on the probability of of mr average.

Miss Marple

[TomTomKent]

Not quite sure how to ask this with out being too vague, but if you were to establish general bullet point rules for your own personal opinions on what makes a suspect viable, or even remotely plausible what would they be?

My own, which are far from perfect would be:
1) to fit reasonably with established evidence.
2) to be "known and shown" to have been in the area for the period.
3) to have evidence connecting them to the case or reasonable cause to believe evidence may be found with continued research.
4) said evidence passes the Winnie the Pooh and Queen Victoria tests. Ie, if the case isbuilt upon vague assertions that Celebrity X might not be where established history places them, or isbased upon cyphers in a painting , novel, poem or play it must be shown these can be substantiated and can not be applied equally well to my benchmark celebrity and text. This has never been passed.
5) is there a reason to suspect the person was Jack, above anybody else?


Mine are lame.. what are yours?