Criteria for plausibility

[Jonathan H]

Hi DRoy

To use Occam's Razor, eg. the simplest line, and so on, can lead to the argument that the Churchill quote -- about the Soviet Union -- is not applicable to Jack the Ripper because it is not a mystery.

It was solved in the Victorian era and revealed to be solved in the late Victorian and/or Edwardian eras.

That it was not solved is a notion, or theory, developed post-WWI in the 20's and, according to the razor, it is a myth because secondary sources are claiming to know more than people who were there.

Certain secondary sources such as Tom Cllen's 'Autumn of Terror' (1965), Paul Begg's 'Jack the Ripper--The Facts' (2006) and Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey's 'The Lodger (1995) argued this revisionist line; that it was solved as far as it could be without a trial at the time, or very soon after.

Because these authors favoured the veracity of different and competing primary sources (by different policemen) there is not a consensus about the, or an [alleged] Victorian police solution and probably never will be.

But that there were contemporaneous police who thought, or at least claimed -- three in public -- that there was a solution, about suspects whom we know really existed, is not in doubt.

[miss marple]

Fisherman, as we know now, serial killers don't come fully matured [ with no previous history of criminal behaviour ] out of a normal life. we understand psychological causes for serial killers,
Whenever suspects are discussed the the profile of the killer is least discussed, that is as important as other clues
Serial killers often have a history of petty crime,[ Haigh, Heath, Christie, Brady] and a disfunctional background.
The crimes of Jack the Ripper appear to be that of a sociopath, his hatred of women, seems to suggest an inability to form relationships, lack of empathy, sense of superiority and other markers of the sociopath would fit the ripper crimes.
Charles Lechmere was married with four children,so could sustain a normal relationship with a woman, he appeared to have a normal family life, and supported his family,he had a policeman stepfather who was probably a strong role model. He appears to have led a normal life apart from discovering the body of a ripper victim.
If you have any evidence that Lechmere had an intense hatred of women, led a life of petty crime, or violence that would help towards his candidacy.
What we know about him does not fit the profile, the fact that is route as a cabman was near ripper sites is hardly surprising.
Spitalfields is a very small place and most Eastenders if you analysed their movements would be close to ripper sites, as for example Joe Barnett was.
I still find the use of' alias' a bit dramatic, he could call himself Cross, it was a name he had a right to use. Eastenders changed names easily, names were more flexible .My own East End ancestors had name changes ,
I think the background of a candidate is very important for plausibility, whatever the ripper was, he was not 'normal'

Cheers Miss Marple

[Fisherman]

Miss Marple:

"Fisherman, as we know now, serial killers don't come fully matured [ with no previous history of criminal behaviour ] out of a normal life."

To be perfectly honest, miss Marple, "we" do not know this at all. Statistically, serial killers are people who have normally had problems with the police, yes, but a man like Dennis Rader also belongs to the statistics.
Apart from this, the fact that we have no criminal record on Lechmere, does not mean that he had not perpetrated criminal offenses, does it? He may well have done so, but been able to stay undetected.

"Serial killers often have a history of petty crime,[ Haigh, Heath, Christie, Brady] and a disfunctional background."

Yes? And ..?

"The crimes of Jack the Ripper appear to be that of a sociopath, his hatred of women, seems to suggest an inability to form relationships, lack of empathy, sense of superiority and other markers of the sociopath would fit the ripper crimes."

Ah! That was where you were going with this! A sociopath? Quite possibly - but sociopaths also marry. They generally are very good at "imitating" the lives of the people surrounding them, they cry when somebody is hurt because they are aware that it is expected of them etc. Therefore they are often quite able to form relationships.

"Charles Lechmere was married with four children ..."

Four? You need to count again!

"... so could sustain a normal relationship with a woman"

Do we know this? Do we know anything but from the fact that he was married and had children? Does that ensure "normality" relationwise?

"...he appeared to have a normal family life, and supported his family..."

Look at Rader, miss Marple. Look at Kürten, who was very affectionate about his wife. Look at Collins. Look at Ridgway, the perfect husband according to his wife.

"...he had a policeman stepfather who was probably a strong role model."

Do we know this too? Could he not have been a very oppressive man? Or a weak man? If so, why?

"If you have any evidence that Lechmere had an intense hatred of women, led a life of petty crime, or violence that would help towards his candidacy."

...and if I go by that description, I lock myself to a picture that may not have applied.

"What we know about him does not fit the profile.."

It does not fit YOUR profile, no. But it fits Raders, it fits Ridgways etcetera.

"...the fact that is route as a cabman was near ripper sites is hardly surprising."

We don´t know that he WAS near all of them - we only know that his working route was close to them and would potentially take him there at the approximate times of the killings. That is striking, to say the very least. Not all carmen lived in Doveton Street, miss Marple, and living in or close by that street is what makes him viable in this context.
Not all carmen had their mothers and daughters living in 147 Cable Street, and THAT is what makes him viable for the Stride killing.
There is nothing undramatic in the fact that this all falls in place. On the contrary, it is very much more specific to Lechmere than some will admit.

"I still find the use of' alias' a bit dramatic, he could call himself Cross, it was a name he had a right to use."

Aha. But I believe you stated that he used the name Cross all the way up to his marriage? Where´s the evidence for this?

"whatever the ripper was, he was not 'normal'"

Let me assure you, miss Marple: if Lechmere was the killer, then he was satisfactoraly unnormal.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wade Aznable]

Hi Wade,

Following the press building up the slaughtermen as suspects in the murder, graffiti was left on their door to the effect of 'The Murderers are here'. I don't have a source to give you this second, but it was in the papers. I wouldn't put it past Jack to have done it himself!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

A fascinating bite of info, thank you very much!
Best regards,
W

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wade,

I'm also coming to think that Tomkins, the slaughterman, was a rather strong suspect among the prostitutes of the area, quite possibly even Pearly Poll.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wade Aznable]

Tom, now you've got me curious (again!): as soon as I get out of the office I'll run home to check my Begg / Fido / Skinner / Sugden and so forth on good ol' Tomkins.
The fact prostitutes suspected him implies that he was abusive towards them? Or maybe that he was a "rougher-than-average" john?

As usual, a great pleasure to talk with you,
W

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wade,

Thanks for the kind words. I want to look into it a little more, and while I think Tomkins might have been a popular suspect even in to October, among some of the lodging house women, I personally do not think he murdered anybody.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wade Aznable]

I absolutely agree.
What I really find interesting is that in respect to the "police suspects" and the "press suspects" (both contemporary and later), we have almost no clue about the "people's suspects", except maybe for Leather Apron / Pizer - where with "people's suspects" I mean the names on the local gossipmongers' mouths out of the pubs, in the streets, in the shops. Probably useless in respect to the big picture, but tremendously fascinating from a social point of view: therefore, I automatically jump in excitement each time I stumble on such tidbits as the graffiti on the slaughtermen's door!

Best regards,
W

[Fisherman]

Wade A:

"we have almost no clue about the "people's suspects"



Which is probably just as well, considering what we DO have! I think the main interest in having them presented to us would be a lot more interesting in terms of human deviations than it would be truly useful in the search for the real killer...

All the best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

Bridewell & Hunter:

Thank you kindly for the welcome wishes!

Jonathan H:

I think you may be reading too much into my use of the Churchill quote. I did not mean it in it's literal sense, nor did I mean to make light of his meaning when he said it. I could have (and maybe should have) instead quoted Joe Pesci from the movie JFK who said "...It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma". Forgive my ignorant use of the quote...my point being that the same could be said about Jack The Ripper.

As mentioned in my first post, I wouldn't use Occam's Razor as a means to establish who Jack was, but to filter out who he couldn't be.

I am a new student to the case as I've only been involved for a few years but I have purposely not chosen a "favorite suspect". My friends and family cannot fathom how I could spend so much time on this yet not even give an opinion on who it may be. I have however been able to drop people off the suspect list because of Occam's Razor.

Yours truly,
DRoy

[Jonathan H]

To DRoy

I'm not sure how we disagree?

I am arguing that Jack the Ripper, in its broad outlines (eg. who Jack was; why he was not arrested) is not a mystery, or an enigma, or a puzzle; eg. not one that was insoluable to the poice at the time.

In the late Victorian and Edwardian eras it was case closed as it was allegedly solved, and publicly declared as such (yes, it was messy because police did not agree, but that does not mean that they automatically cancel each other out).

When we talk of the Ripper mystery as a mystery this is a notion first propagated to great and lasting effect in the 1920's.

'JFK' the demagogic movie illustrates my point.

That hyperbolic scene has David Ferrie uttering lines he never said, making confessions he never made, and being murdered by confederates when he died of natural causes.

Putting its merits as a work of cinema to one side, Oliver Stone's movie is historically worthless as even a loose dramatization of either the Assassination of President Kennedy, or the Garrison 'Inquiry', or the trial of Clay Shaw.

Worse than worthless because it's hysterical, right-wing lies mislead millions to this day (A sincere leftist Stone, I believe, was manipulated by a dying but still potent Garrison, who exploited the frenetic director's personal anguish over the Viet Nam tragedy).

The Marxist Marine, Lee Harvey Oswald obviously killed JFK acting alone in Dealey Plaza, Jim Garrison was obviously an unhinged fraud, and Clay Shaw was obviously a victim of a malicious prosecution (though thankfully speedily acquitted).

But wide-eyed buffs keep the notion of a monolithic, high level conspiracy alive.

[DRoy]

Jonathan H:

I see your point now, although I don't necessarily agree that it was not a mystery, an enigma nor a puzzle at the time for the same reasons you mentioned...that not everyone accepted it was closed. If the top brass says its closed then its closed but it doesn't mean its actually closed. Saying that though doesn't mean I won't accept that it was solved back then...but I'm not convinced yet.

However, I do tend to agree with your argument and all others who put clout in contemporary "evidence" and suspects.

I am still a fan of the quote in all its variances. I've heard it on The Simpsons and a couple of comedy t.v shows as well. Whether appropriate in my post or not...if someone were to ask me to summarize the Jack The Ripper "mystery" and I had eight words or less to answer...that's how I'd answer

By the way, you should write movie reviews...that was awesome!

[towboydds]

TomTom,
I have always been under the school of thought that a 'Person of Interest Pool' Could only be drawn up by first understand the the Sociology & Psychology of each separate case of the 1-20 murders that have been attributed to one single person. Once that has been done in each and every separate case then it is quite ordinary to look at the Religious overture, and Medical tone, at the same time but do not base the search on history books alone but other written literature at the time as well, because they show a moral sense of how society thought and felt at the time. I have thought that this would be a great place to start to gain a PIP from and then see if any names show up more than once, if any at all. But then again I am a newbie and could be barking at a tree that isn't even there.

[Wade Aznable]

Wade A:

"we have almost no clue about the "people's suspects"

Which is probably just as well, considering what we DO have! I think the main interest in having them presented to us would be a lot more interesting in terms of human deviations than it would be truly useful in the search for the real killer...

All the best,
Fisherman

Which, more or less, is my point (BTW, nice to meet you, Fisherman!): the fact is, in the beginning my interest in JTR was "confined" in the "whodunit" area - but the more I got "acquainted" with the case, the more I found my interest expanding to everything that revolves around Jack, with a particular soft spot for the historical and social aspects.
Now, and even more THEN, "vox populi" not necessarily matches "vox dei": but to know what the "vox populi" said, during those months in '88 and after, would be extremely fascinating, although probably useless in catching the real Jack.

Best regards!
W

[Wickerman]

The Marxist Marine, Lee Harvey Oswald obviously killed JFK acting alone in Dealey Plaza,

As is often the case when an "obvious" solution is proposed it is usually the result of a personal belief.

The "grassy knoll" was just a distraction, nothing of consequence happend there.
Kennedy was certainly shot from above & behind, but not necessarily from the suggested window at the School book-depository.

Whoever did take the shot would have been chaperoned out of Dallas well within the hour. We'll never know his name but someday his bones will turn up in some cement foundation just outside the city.
The 'Family' most certainly covered their tracks with this one.

Lonely misguided Oswald takes the fall, served up on a platter with no-one in his corner, but thats how it was intended to be.

Nothing "obvious", except that obviously things were not what they appeared to be. Much the same can be said of the Ripper investigation, only in this case it is primarily due to lack of official information, not intentional deception.

Regards, Jon S.