Could we prove any suspect guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt?"

[Mayerling]

I retired from my civil service job last October, but since January I have been in ill-health (though currently it is under control, and never life threatening). As a result, I missed out on this thoroughly interesting thread. In fact I have only just read the entire thread because I am concerned about a current thread elsewhere from RavenDarkendale that she is hurt due to comments she felt were uncalled for on still another thread she started concerning the so-called "Royal Conspiracy".

First, I feel that Raven has been an active and interesting correspondent on this board since she joined about a year or a year and a half ago. As such she should be supported (as I believe she is) by the membership here to stay because her comments are welcomed to stimulate discussion. Indeed, I feel at times many of my comments are ignored, but on thinking about these points many deserve to be (i.e., I tend to give what I think are clarification points, and perhaps none were required at the time).

Second, on this particular thread, I don't think it will be ever very likely that the identity of the Whitechapel killer will be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". Reason: It is now 125 years since the "autumn of terror" in London, and we are still searching for answers. This is not to say the researches conducted have been without value. Even if one disagrees with the candidate or approach of a student of criminal history, the attempt to make some comment is valuable. Put another way for us to understand this - Thomas Edison, talking about how long it took him to make one of his inventions work, insisted that the years of drudgery and experimentation were not wasted time up blind allies, but were actually showing WHAT DOES NOT WORK! Same can be said here in all our joint endeavours.

My guess is that we will come to a point, maybe not soon but someday, where we will approach an actual suspect who looks very good indeed for our killer. But due to loss of final pieces of evidence (which may have existed briefly in 1888, but have been dispersed since that time by a wide variety of causes) we will never be totally sure.

I have never chosen any suspect for the Ripper. I don't dare to do so - I feel that I cannot be totally sure of all the facts, even though I have about seven books or more on the case. But I find that the value of our joint investigations has led to far more than naming a paricularly vicious creep (and anyone looking at the morgue shots, especially poor Mary Kelly's, can't help but assume the killer was a vicious creep) into looking more closely at the world in the late 19th Century than most of us ever thought of doing in the first place. Put another way again: We have here a chance to build a really good monument to the five ladies (no - let us say to all the victims from say Emma Smith through Frances Coles) in learning and studies to give their tragically shortened lives a real long term value.

I hope (if she reads this) Raven will change her mind. This board needs all commentators and inquirers and investigators. It needs the Ravens as much as anyone else who has added a comment one way or another to the threads over the years.

Jeff

[Bridewell]

Hello Colin. Trevor dumped Feigenbaum some time ago.

Cheers.
LC

I hope he did it with compassion

[lynn cates]

divorce

Hello Colin. Trevor dumped Feigenbaum some time ago.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

I tend to agree with Trevor Marriot's suspect Kelly.

Has he moved on from Feigenbaum then?

[Flagg]

Sickert seems to be the leading candidate thanks to Ms. Cornwall's accusations.

That would mean a large number of people would have to agree with her, which - on the evidence of Casebook - I do not see as being the case.

So I don't think he IS the "leading candidate" (whatever that means).

I'd argue that there is no LEADING suspect today, though KOSMINSKI surely has to be high on any list I think.

Of the others, Druitt, like Kosminski, has Macnagten's qualified endorsement (Ostrog having been ruled out now, I think, on good grounds) and remains a possibility. But that is not to say there is a shred of solid evidence against him or anyone.

In popular gossip, Prince Eddy seems still to be talked of (in my view largely a result of films which get repeated and the "royal" link), but few here would agree, I am sure.

Happy to discuss further if you disagree.

Phil

"Seems",not "Is". The poll on this site has a good number of votes that cast him as JtR. Which, of all the suspects, has received the most attention? Walter Sickert. This would make P.C. happy I suppose. She's spent millions to prove he was the killer while sabotaging her case against him. She stated in her book that he was deathly afraid of germs. If that was true, then it's not realistic to think he was tromping around the East End cutting up those poor women because they were definitely not germ-free.

I tend to agree with Trevor Marriot's suspect Kelly.

[Phil H]

Itīs all very scholarly, Iīm sure.

It confirms what I thought, but it's nice to have confirmation that (if we take your statement at face value) you regard scholarship as "suspect".

At least I now know where to file your past and future contributions to debate.

Phil

[Phil H]

Point taken Dale.

Your B requirement is a tad iffy. If the murderer was selecting random victims, he didn't need to be connected past the stalk and kill. Anyone seen with them on the night they died definitely becomes suspect, but the murderer may never have been spotted at all. You would then be unable to trace a line from the victim back to the murderer.

I was seeking to cover all bases. Barnett, Flemming etc are known to have known MJK; Kelly similarly with Eddowes; at an extreme Cross/Lechmere has an association with the body of Polly Nichols. To my mind this is a "tick in the box" for their candidacy as compared to Mr A N Other (my current lead suspect ) who lived in Ealing and was known to be violent with women in 1885 or 1893.

I think frankly that we do have to set high barriers to considering susopects, otherwise as we have seen we get one-eared Gallic painters and potentially paedophile dons proposed.

Phil

[RavenDarkendale]

@Phil H

You are correct that London is too broad a target, but I did say "likely Whitechapel." What I meant is anyone walking those streets, living in the area, or knowing a victim becomes a suspect. Thus even ones now being checked out had to be there at the very least. Ruling out Ostrag and Cream.

Your B requirement is a tad iffy. If the murderer was selecting random victims, he didn't need to be connected past the stalk and kill. Anyone seen with them on the night they died definitely becomes suspect, but the murderer may never have been spotted at all. You would then be unable to trace a line from the victim back to the murderer.

[Fisherman]

You know my views on your approach to historical method, Fisherman. It hasn't changed.
Phil

I know - and I know. And you are most welcome to your take on it. Itīs all very scholarly, Iīm sure.

I still opt for evidence, though - ten times out of ten.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon!

In Ostrogīs case, we know that he was a suspect. We know that he was not the killer. And we still accept that there was once evidence.

Hi Wicker

They did and they didn't. They apparently did not have considerably more information on Ostrog than we have today.

Hello Crister, Abby.

Hmm..... but when was Ostrog suspected?

From what I can see Macnaghten offered three names who were all suspected after the murders were done.

Certainly it was known that Ostrog was wanted for criminal behaviour in 1888, but no paperwork that I know of suggested he was wanted in connection with the murders.

Neither Druitt, Kosminski, nor...Ostrog were wanted, or even suspected, at the time of the murders.

What DOES exist, and what IS contemporary too is Macnaghtens statement that there was never a shadow of proof against any of the suspects, and Abberlines assertion that fifteen years down the line, the police was none the wiser.

And lets not forget Anderson's own words written on 23rd Oct., that "five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind".

That, speaks volumes... especially for those who believe Kosminski was weeded out in consequence of the house-to-house search.

Regards, Jon S.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Crister.

I think the point to consider is that the police of the time had considerably more information on their suspects than we can hope to have.

Our suspicions often stem from what we don't know, than from what we do.

Those like Pizer don't really make the grade, he wasn't a suspect in the true sense of the word. Public concern was about Leather Apron, the police tracked him down and decided Pizer was him, but after they investigated thorougly, Pizer was cleared. That's just police doing their job.

I don't think the police ever did have a suspect during the spate of murders. By that I mean someone whom they suspected but couldn't prove it, so they follow him, stake him out, track his movements, hoping to catch him in the act. Just the same procedure that we read of Kosminski, except their suspicions about Kosminski appear to have been long after the murders had ceased.

Sadly, we have no records of police suspicions of anyone during August to December 1888, so if they had any all the records have been lost.

Modern 'suspect' theories are mostly built on guesswork, whereas contemporary police suspects (if they had any), would have been certainly built on factual evidence.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wicker

I think the point to consider is that the police of the time had considerably more information on their suspects than we can hope to have.

They did and they didn't. They apparently did not have considerably more information on Ostrog than we have today.

And if you think about it-if the Ripper is ever going to be identified its going to be from something conclusive we find out about a suspect today and not any evidence that the police then had on a suspect.

[Phil H]

In reality any of the suspects can be suspected because they were in London, and likely Whitechapel, during the time of the murders. Good police work is suspect everyone, then begin to weed out those who can prove an alibi or for some other reason could not be guilty of the crime.

Dale - I feel that is dangerous ground. being in London (a huge City) would apply to many people.

I am firmly of the view that before any individual can be regarded as a reasonable MODERN suspect, more is required. (Kosminski, Druitt, Tumblety are of course contenmporary suspects so what follows does not apply to them - a different reasoning is required. Though I personally think that my A, B C below should be applied to each.)

In the absence of specific material linking him to the crimes, I believe that a reasonable case has to demonstrate at least one (if not more) of the following:

a) presence in the East End in the period (or links to it or knowledge of it);

b) a link to a victim;

c) motivation and likelihood ( known hatred of women, tendency to violence etc).

A would apply to Barnardo for instance.

B would apply to Barnett, Flemming, Hutchinson in regard to MJK as examples.

C would apply to Issenschmidt, I think.

Anything else is in my view to weak to support the construction of any sort of case.

Phil

[Phil H]

You know my views on your approach to historical method, Fisherman. It hasn't changed.

Yes, of course the contemporary police suspects would have become suspects owing to factual evidence - but letīs not loose track of the fact that other things were admissible as evidence back then, things that would never pass the scrutiny of todayīs legal system.

Hardly relevant to the fact that contemporary suspects are such because they are part of the historical record.

We must therefore be very wary of this when we try to assess what worth to ascribe to our agreement that evidence would have grounded the base on which a suspect was formed.

Irrelevant to the fact that a contemporary suspect would have to be dismissed only by argument, not assumption. Ostrog can be put aside as I said earlier on sound grounds. Not so Druitt or Kosminski, I think.

In Ostrogīs case, we know that he was a suspect. We know that he was not the killer. And we still accept that there was once evidence.

Do we, or do we now believe that the police (not least MM) were under a misapprehension? There may NOT have been EVIDENCE at the time, simply assumptions made. But the fact remains he was named. We need to be precise in this regard.

So what would that evidence have been? Allegations, probably, perhaps information from some source saying that he was the killer, or recorded evidence that he had at some stage threatened women with a knife or something such. Faulty information that he had been sighted at a murder site, etcetera. Something like that.

Dismissing Ostrog is not dependent on such reasoning or knowledge. He is exempted by reason of having been in custody in France at a key moment. It may be of interest to discover why the police took the view they did. It is not relevant to the factual exhoneration of Ostrog.

This is why I keep saying that until we see that evidence, it is totally impossible to evaluate it and make any soundly based stance regarding the culpability of any given suspect.

Your view. I disagree.

In my world, having been proven to have been a contemporary suspect makes you a person of interest. Somebody we owe it to ourselves and rational thinking to investigate as far as we can. But it does not tell us that we should ascribe any sort of level of potential culpability to the suspect.

Up to each of us to argue - I'm sure jonathan and dale would not agree in regard to MJD, for instance. Though i disagree with them strongly, they make reasonable cases.

That must remain an open question until more information is added. And so far, not a iota of evidence making a clear connection inbetween any of the contemporary suspects and any of the Whitechapel murders exist.

But may once have done. We should not assume that there was once much more material available to the police - some perhaps confidential - that is unavailable to us. That is why - except in circumstances such as ostrog - we cannot rule out Kosminski or Druitt.

What DOES exist, and what IS contemporary too is Macnaghtens statement that there was never a shadow of proof against any of the suspects, and Abberlines assertion that fifteen years down the line, the police was none the wiser.

There are many, sometimes contradictory statements over several years by the police. Each has to be evaluated as part of the case being made by the individual student/historian. We cannot make blanket assumptions. yes, such statements are part of the record, yes they have to be reasoned out individually, given weight and place by argument.

We are left in the dark, thus. The suspicions may or may not have been well-grounded. Only the evidence can confirm or dispell the suspicions.

No we are not. We are simply made aware that, as today, officials and people generally could hold antagonistic views, differ, argue, be petty, engage in office warfare and politics etc etc. I imagine that strong views and healthy argument takes place in many investigations between the officers involved. It's healthy, not least when the crime is unsolved.

As for modern suspect theories building on guesswork, Iīd say that there is every chance that the contemporary suspicions built on the exact same thing. Somebody said Issenschmidt walked the streets at nighttime, carrying knives with him. So the police made the guess that he could have been the killer. And that was a fair guess - there was evidence that he was out at nighttime, and that he had knives on his person.

Each student/writer has to argue the case and convince others - that is the heart of the historical method and how historical thinking evolves generation by generation. there is no historical absolute - as any student learns early on - ONLY interpretation.

But there is ALSO evidence that Charles Lechmere was found by a victim. There is also evidence that he used a false name, that he misinformed Mizen etcetera.

But in evaluating evidence and considering the arguments/cases advanced by others, each of us must try to separate out:

a) the facts (avoiding cherry picking or ignoring inconvenient material);

b) interpretation;

c) good historical thinking and reasoning (based on logic etc);

d) special pleading;

e) the absorbtion of initial assumptions as later facts (this is what i call building a case on weak foundations).

A, B and c are good; D and E should be rejected firmly. Knight's book is a good example of the reliance of a case on D & E and he deliberately and knowingly ignored material inimical to his case.

Phil

[RavenDarkendale]

In reality any of the suspects can be suspected because they were in London, and likely Whitechapel, during the time of the murders. Good police work is suspect everyone, then begin to weed out those who can prove an alibi or for some other reason could not be guilty of the crime.

One exception to this is Doctor Neil Cream, who was in Joliet Prison in Illinois, USA during the Whitechapel murders.

He couldn't be in two places at once, and the talk of "doubles" sounds like an excuse to ignore facts because of his last words on the scaffold, which could have been anything, even a last ditch effort to avoid hanging at the time by confessing to the Whitechapel crimes, thus sparking investigations that would allow him to live a while longer in order to be questioned.

Remember Henry Lee Lucas , under sentence of death for the murder of an unidentified woman confessed to a great number of crimes, becoming something of a celebrity and having sentence transmuted to life in prison.

[Fisherman]

Phil!

Thanks for your reply!

I direct you to my answer to Jon, since I really have nothing much to add to that, and I feel it provides my answer to you too.

All the best,
Fisherman