Eliminate the impossible...

[RavenDarkendale]

We have a great many suspects in constant discussion here, and I was wondering who could be crossed off the list by use of evidence.

Doctor Thomas Neill Cream was in Joliet Correctional Center, Joliet, Illinois, United States during the murders. This would throw this case, on known evidence, into the dark realm of the impossible. One down.

Prince Eddy was out of the country during the murders. Unless he could be in two places at once, call him also impossible. Two down.

The entire "Royal Conspiracy" thing seems to hinge on the story by Joseph Sickert. There is no evidence of a secret marriage of Prince Eddy to Annie Elizabeth Crook , nor that they had an illegitimate daughter, Alice Margret. There is no evidence that Sickert was ever married to a woman named Alice Margret and no evidence Sickert ever had children. He was married three times. This begins a slide into the realm of the impossible.

Further thoughts, anyone? Once we eliminate the impossible, according to Sherlock Holmes, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth. Who else among suspects is impossible using only known evidence, not conjecture?

[Limehouse]

Hi Raven

What an excellent idea! Sickert could probably also be eliminated on the grounds that he was in France at the time of the murders.

[RavenDarkendale]

Yes, that would be another "in two places at once" deal. Impossible is impossible, how ever you try to present it...

Four theories down, then. We are looking for eliminations on known facts. Conjecture on a suspect does not clear him, it may make the case improbable, but improbable is not impossible!

Any others?

[Sally]

What an excellent idea! Sickert could probably also be eliminated on the grounds that he was in France at the time of the murders

Ah yes, but so was Van Gogh, and we all know that he's a suspect, right?

[Cogidubnus]

You just beat me to saying that Sally!

All the best

Dave

[Errata]

Unfortunately this is one of those problems where parameters have to be set. If we accept that the C5 and only the C5 were killed by the Ripper, and all of them were killed by the Ripper, we can eliminate people. One the other hand, if we accept the possibility of at lest one other killer, then certain alibis fall apart. Unless they were out of the country for every single murder. Without knowing any of this for sure, it becomes more of an intellectual exercise to eliminate people. On the other hand, I totally support any use of intellect or reason, even if it cannot necessarily result in certainty.

[Jon Guy]

It`s probably an easier exercise to start with a blank canvas and add suspects using the available evidence.

[Phil H]

To be historically valid - you can discount (giving reasons), but not eliminate - contemporary suspects.

For instance, Kosminski, Druitt and Ostrog have to remain listed as contemporary suspects, even though we know or suspect information about them to be incorrect (or with Ostrog) to rule them out. We simply do not have the information today to do more than question their listing. Further, we may (from this distance in time) misunderstand or misinterpret the wording given by men such as Swanson who were much more closely involved than we are and in a position to know.

Elimination of more recent suspects - from PAV to Barnardo and Carroll/Dodgson might be acceptable - except (I suspect) to their adherents/proposers.

On men like Barnett, Lechmere Cross, Hutchinson, Kidney (only examples) - it will depend on where you stand. To me, all of those should remain under consideration and be researched as fuly as possible. Others, as threads on this site demonstrate, would readily discount them.

Phil H

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

The premise is a good one in that we do have sufficient grounds for dismissing many "suspects" from the accumulated list at our disposal.

The issue would be that the premise seeks to exclude people who were unavailable to kill the 5 Canonicals....and since we dont need to be looking for a single killer for that entire group, the premise is flawed.

If youre really interested in identifying people that we should be focused on take every known suspect and match their availability with the particulars of any one of the Canonical murders.

Lynn Cates did a good job of illustrating how an individual suspect should be reviewed with his article on Isenschmid, demonstrating that if a suspect had the access, the skills, the mental illness then he should be near the top of the list for that murder. The fact that Jacob was not free to continue a reign of terror should not exclude him as a suspect for Annies murder...and by comparison, Pollys,.... just excluded as a suspect who could have killed all 5 women.

If people would abandon the search for a Jack the Ripper killer of 5, I believe there could be some real progress in solving some of these murders. We have access to the knowledge, research, and expert opinion to apply to such an endeavor, but what we lack as a group is the focus and will to view these murders as individual unsolved cases.

Which is precisely what they are.

Cheers

[harry]

How does one prove the impossible? In the case of those suspects reportedly absent from the scene of the crimes,can one say that the evidence of whereabouts of those suspects is total and undeniable.Today we rely not on personnel knowledge or observation,but on documentary information,on the beliefs and statements of others.Is it impossible for those people to be wrong?

[RavenDarkendale]

I was never saying not to suspect anyone. Just can we on evidence we HAVE weed through our suspect list.

The point raised by Errata is a solid one. Suppose they have unshakable alibis for three of the C5. To eliminate, we must assume that the C5 were done by only one person. Although the opinion of the time the murders were committed could be said to be C5 and C5 only, nor everyone involved in the cases agreed. This makes it harder to eliminate people.

In cases where the suspect changed his spots, so to speak, and was convicted of poisoning victims in stead of the slashing, probably not a good match for the JtR crimes. The MO is all wrong.

I still think we can rule out Prince Eddy, evidence extremely shaky
Doctor Thomas Neill Cream, definitely out of the country and wrong MO
and the Royal Conspiracy based on a testimony that doesn't match known fact

Others can, as Phil H says, be discounted as highly unlikely but remain on the list. Every viable suspect should be checked.

It' s simply that we have so many that there must be a paring down. Look at MO, victimology, whereabouts, ease of access to the victims, known mental instability, etc. Some would have to remain as solid suspects, others either eliminate or marked as improbable.

I still think this thread can be a valuable discussion point. List pro's and con's, and give evidence supporting or not. This is kind of a grand-jury, finding is there enough evidence to go to trial. Happy hunting.

Raven

[lynn cates]

double take

Hello Raven. I think your overall idea here is good, but permit me to point out that, even in the case of Dr. Cream, supporters have existed whom have devised an ingenious case concerning a double.

If taken seriously, this could put him back into the mix.

It may be VERY difficult to write someone off the list--especially given that the suspect has ardent supporters.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

I still think this thread can be a valuable discussion point. List pro's and con's, and give evidence supporting or not. This is kind of a grand-jury, finding is there enough evidence to go to trial. Happy hunting.

Raven

I think in this case, a sort of sliding scale of probability may be useful. Eliminating the impossible may be, well, impossible. But any number of people can be a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10. 10 being totally could have done it, 1 being no way on earth barring fantastical circumstances.

For example, I would put Kosminski down as a 5. The opportunity was there, there is no evidence of motive, but that's not to say there wasn't one. On a purely factual basis, there is nothing to rule him out. But on a behavioral basis I feel like that a lot of the behaviors that make some people suspect him actually rules him out. Based on availability and the Swanson Marginalia, the simple mechanics of the case makes him a 10. Based on what we know about Victorian culture and people with his kind of problems, he's a 1. So it balances out to a 5.

[Phil H]

Or what about a matrix or grid - this could work with a points/scale system.

The grid ould include all the possible victims and other relevant details and each "suspect" would then get a tick, a cross or a question mark in each box.

Phil H

[RavenDarkendale]

All good ideas but I think the matrix of suspect to individual victim would work fine Anyone who would like to tackle making on for this thread has my permission and my thanks. I could do something like this any number of ways for just me, here at home, but making one on this forum I cannot.

Oh, and Lynn:

Giving serious consideration to doubles would make it tough to eliminate either of them. Of course, the prison records might have photos, it would be a little early for even the Bertillon System of identifying criminals to come into play, so any ID that could be measured doesn't apply here.

A funny story here, Lynn:

My grandfather had twin brothers that were "mirror twins". The family, who were big into nicknames called them "Santy" and "Rudy". One went to a local tailor and had a suit made. Both brothers would wear the suit turn and turn about. Every time the tailor saw one of the brothers he would demand his pay. Each would then claim they didn't order the suit, their twin did. The tailor finally went to a lawyer. There was no signature on the bill. The lawyer advised the tailor to just eat the bill as he would never prove which had actually been there.

Somehow I don't think asking: Will the real Doctor Cream please rap once for yes, twice for no would do any good!