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

[Fisherman]

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 Jon!

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.

Phrenology, for example, was the order of the day, and we know that as late as in the 1930:s, Elliott Ness was looking for the Mad Butcher of Kingsbury Run using the so called Bertillonage - a schematic overview of which distinctive physical features attached to which type of criminal offender.

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.

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.
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.

This, of course, does belong to the pool of evidence that existed. And in Ostrogīs case, that evidence was useless. It was no real evidence, if the demand we raise is that the evidence should tie the suspect to one or more of the killings.

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.

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. 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.

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. These things also belong to the evidence and they actually present two views from very informed men on what value the evidence could be ascribed. The same goes for Henry Smithīs bid - the killer beat the police, fair and square. He even goes as far as to dub Andersonīs suspect an outrageous suggestion.

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.

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.

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.

Therefore what I am doing when looking at my suspect, is also to look at the evidence and try and conclude things from it. It is really the exact same thing that the police did back then. Bringing my reasoning back to a full circle, they however did not evaluate the evidence the same was as we do today, and there is evidence (yes!) that the 19:th century police worked form an agenda of prejudices to a large extent.

I am not saying that we should disregard the contemporary suspects. Any serious research must give it top priority. And it has done, for 125 years. To very little practical avail as regards any proven culpability. Weīve learnt tremendeous amounts of things about the era and itīs people, though, and thatīs not a bad thing.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

" ... those named at the time are on the historical record. Those named later are utterly subjective."

I can only take it that this is another manner of writing "the ones suspected at the time will always have more merit than the ones named later". Correct me if Iīm wrong!

I'll correct you because you are wrong - at least in terms of what I believe.

The historical record is the historical record: end of story.

But the key word is NOT, in my opinion "MERIT".

We cannot expunge suspects from it. Thus Ostrog will always remain a contemporary "suspect" because MM named him. However, modern historians can reasonably remove him from further discussion because we have good evidence that those in the C19th were misinformed. That evidence is widely accepted and thus can almost be taken as a given.

More recent suspects can have enormous importance - particularly if (like Tumblety) they are contemporary suspects only recently brought to light.

For the rest, it depends on the arguments of those promoting a candidate to gain peer acceptance for their case. That is how historical interpretation evolves in all fields. The arguments you advance and the evidence produced are the sole determinants of whether a modern suspect has credibility and wide acceptance.

Sickert, I would argue, fails that test despite all that Ms Cornwell has thrown at him. Maybrick is dependent on the diary whose genuineness remains in question. Just two examples.

Happy to discuss further if you want more clarification.

But this is simple historical method, not anything new.

Phil

[Wickerman]

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.

[Fisherman]

Iīve said it before and I may just as well say it again:

Phil H:

" ... those named at the time are on the historical record. Those named later are utterly subjective."

I can only take it that this is another manner of writing "the ones suspected at the time will always have more merit than the ones named later". Correct me if Iīm wrong!

Objections:

A. ALL suspects are subjective in the sense that somebody has taken a look at them and judged them useful as potential suspects. They do not emerge as suspects as the result of any natural law - the judgement of people - always subjective - lies behind it.

B. It therefore applies that there is no need at all to regard any non-contemporary suggestion of a suspect as more subjective than the contemporary ones. The inherent qualities of the suspects are what determines how subjective their respective candidacies are. If we were to disregard this, then we are accepting that the police was unfallable and took all the right decisions, meaning that the ones they did not suspect could not be the killer, whereas the ones they DID suspect must ALL have been the killer.
To me, that does not pan out.
Just like Phil H points out, Ostrog can be ruled out; we know that now. By reasoning, we also know that the police did suspect people who were innocent of the Ripper deeds. Ergo - and as should be suspected - they were fallable.
Expand that thinking and that knowledge to the next level, and what we have is a couple of contemporary suspects who have NOT been proven not to be the Ripper. For these men, it applies that tangible evidence must be added to their files before we may conclude that they were good or bad suspects. Until that happens, we canīt tell.

And the exact same rules apply to the non-contemporary suspects. Not having been a suspect at the time cannot possibly reflect poorly on their viability today.

Only the evidence counts, nothing else.

Just saying.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Fleming has to be a credible suspect, he is the only person that has ties with the ''apparent '' last victim of the Ripper, that is found to have been insane.
This is of course if James Evans was Joseph Fleming?
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

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

[Flagg]

The list of suspects just on this forum is long, and I believe it is only the "short list", people who are strong "persons of interest." Which brings me to another point. I read everything I can get my hands on about JtR. The various authors have various suspects, each with tantalizing clues that could be indicative of their guilt. But "innocence is assumed until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Are there any suspects about whom reasonable doubt could NOT be claimed?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: The suspects in this case are all equal in the current fact that they can't be linked to the crimes in a way that would stand up in court.

" I'd be happy to put the case up before the Crown prosecutor ".

A line from Cornwall's book, definitely taken out of context.

Sickert seems to be the leading candidate thanks to Ms. Cornwall's accusations. And they're just accusations because there is no proof that he was the killer. Sound familiar? There's no proof any of the suspects was indeed JtR. Sickert was a bizarre man, to say the least, but I wouldn't say he was a murderer. He did snatch some of that fame he craved, though. He fooled Cornwall into believing he was JtR. Ha, ha!

Suspect to scene
Suspect to victim
Physical evidence
Credible witnesses

When the above is met by one suspect then maybe, just maybe, we'll have our man.

[Phil H]

There is no solid evidence against any suspect, RD.

We have contemporary sucpects, by which I mean Ischeschmidt etc, Puckeridge, Sandars etc. Maybe John Pizer.

We have named conmtemporary suspects - Kosminski, Druitt and Ostrog. maybe Tumblety. One might add "Balfour's assassin" (MM); Chapman/Klosowski (Abberline) etc.

And we have suspects named later - Sickert, PAV, Stephen etc.

Against none do we have solid evidence.

But those named at the time are on the historical record. Those named later are utterly subjective.

Phil H

[RavenDarkendale]

Actually Phil where is the solid evidence against any suspect?

It might be argued that the Diary helps the Maybrick case, but only if it is genuinely the words of Jack the Ripper and not a morbid man wasted on drugs, assuming it isn't a total fake.

It might be argued that D'Onston was self-incriminating with his published article explaining the GSG. Perhaps, and perhaps he just was able to see an explanation that the police missed.

All the evidence is controversial against any suspect, and much is rumor or hearsay. I lean towards Druitt, as you know, but I am a realist. The evidence isn't available to even place him at a crime scene. I think Mac knew more than he told, and that perhaps it once did exist, but that is more speculation.

God Bless

Raven Darkendale

[Jonathan H]

What happened to my answer about Balfour ...?

We will have to agree to disagree -- and I disagree with virtually every line you write.

Look, I only have to show that a primary source is reliable, and also compelling because it, arguably, goes against its expected bias.

You are also moving the goal-posts.

The old paradigm was that Mac was a bit of a thickie, certainly poorly informed.

I have presented an argument that he was well-informed, intelligent, diligent, with a retentive memory, discreet, hands-on -- and cunning (how successfully I have done this, or not, is in the eye of the beholder) and that he had in Farquharson a go-between source who could supply him with correct, basic information about Druitt (the MP knew the family as near-neighbours and members of the same party).

You are assuming that because I have no 'evidence' against Druitt neither did they?

That is the self-defeating intellectual exercise for it denies common sense, and further denies that these people were real and lived and could make sound judgments.

Swanson may only be repeating and expanding Anderson's opinion -- in Anderson's book -- and thus not providing confirmation.

Whereas Macnaghten was backing the family, and the MP (and the people he told) who were all people with a vested interest in the accusation not being true.

Yet they believed.

If the 'North Country Vicar' of 1899 is writing about Druitt, and in an incredible but not impossible coincidence he may not be, then we know at least the shape of the evidence against Druitt: a confession in deed, eg. the veiled, Edwardian version of the instant, shrieking suicide, fronted for a confession in words and a cool-headed self-murder.

[Phil H]

Jonathan - as i have said before, I recognise and applaud your persistence on this issue and there is much to be said for your arguments.

BUT

You should be able to perceive that the edifice you have so carefully constructed is ENTIRELY intellectual - it has NO solid foundations. Thus, to me at least, it has no more substance than a pack of cards.

For all your undoubted eleoquence and fervour you cannot advance ONE IOTA of evidence to link Druitt with a victim, a crime scene, show he EVER visited the East End, or indicate any tendency towards murder. Everything you refer to is hearsay and often no more than oft repeated tittle-tattle. That does not make it fact. There is perhaps even less basis to consider Druitt as a suspect than Kosminski - at least Swanson appears to back Anderson up on that.

Sorry, but Druittist though I was in my younger days, I remain unconvinced.

Phil H

[Beowulf]

It would almost be better to say 'Could we prove any suspect innocent beyond a reasonable doubt?'.

[Jonathan H]

To Raven

Yes, that is one interpretation but arguably not the strongest.

That is because there is no evidence that there was ever a rumour that Druitt was a doctor.

Plus it would have been as easy as looking up an old newspaper for Macnaghten to discover that Druitt was a young barrister, assuming he not meet with a Druitt -- and I think he did.

One of the foundation myths of modern Ripperology is that Macnaghten did not do any of this. That he lacked curiousity about such matters, let alone competence. Such incurious, lazy behaviour does not match what others wrote about Mac, the 'action man' obsessed with the Ripper mystery -- and it does not match his memoirs.

Henry Farquharson in 1891 is telling people that the 'son of a surgeon' killed himself 'the same evening' as the final murder. That blood-stained clothes were found.

The 1891 repeats of the MP tale in some other papers, fearful of a libel action presumably by the family, awkwardly fused together father and son.

This is exactly what Mac did in his initial Report(s); subsumed the father into the son.

By the time the story is relaunched into the public arena by Mac via Griffiths and Sims, in 1898-9, the doctor's son has become a middle-aged doctor, the MP and Dorset are out and the location and method of suicide are in. The Druitt family become anomic pals.

From 1902 Sims would have the 'mad doctor' as an asylum veteran who did not work for years. He is really the drowned unemployed doctor.

Thus the profile became unrecogniseable to people who actually knew Druitt, outside of those in-the-know about his dual identity. Charges of indiscretion and callousness could be deflected on the basis that the Ripper has no patients and no family to distress, only friends -- and they already knew the worst.

The perfect fix.

In his memoirs Mac dropped the doctor element and specifically repudiated the asylum detail. If the maniac was never in an asylum, and was not a semi-invalid, then perhaps the fiend did work for a living? What did he do? Mac does not say but I think he knew full well that Druitt was a barrister and part-time teacher (and cricketer).

'Said to be a doctor ...' means he might be a doctor, or he might not be -- and he wasn't.

[RavenDarkendale]

To Raven

In the one public public document under his own name Sir M conceded that the Ripper was not known to police for 'some years after' he killed himself -- which did not happen 'the same evening' as the last murder (as the MP wrongly thought) -- and he does not claim he was a doctor.

Fat lot of good it did him ...

True Jonathan, he actually remarked "said to be a Doctor", which indicates that this was the rumor going around about Druitt.

Raven Darkendale

[Jonathan H]

To Phil H

Because Sir Melville himself in an internal document which he anonymously disseminated to the public, plus his 1913 retirement comments, and his 1914 memoirs, rightly or wrongly, pushed for Druitt as the Ripper (though not in public by name) and nobody else.

Douglas Browne's 50's book on the history of Scotland Yard is reporting what he claims were Sir Melville's view, not from the police chief himself (a book he was finishing due to the death of the original author).

It's at one remove, as a secondary source.

That makes it, automatically, less valuable and less reliable according to historical methodology.

When you see the line about Sir M claiming it may have been the leader of a plot against Balfour you discover that it is embedded in a paragraph about policemen's memoirs. Weirdly Browne has Mac and his successor disagreeing with each other about the Ripper as a suicide.

But ... they did not disagree?

Mac's chapter on the fiend ends with him saying that the Ripper nearly ended the career of an un-named sec. of state (Henry Matthews). Reading in haste, you could mis-understand that line literally. Since Balfour was the only minister under threat from nearly being bumped off at that moment then the writer has assumed that's whom he meant, and so on.

It would be a stronger source if Browne mentioned that Mac changed his mind, but he is arguably oblivious. What it actually shows is that his internal report, official version, was an unknown document -- which this writer never came across.

To Raven

Fair enough, but I do not agree, for reasons already argued; that Druitt begins in the extant record prior to police involvement, which only meant Sir Melville anyhow.

In the one public public document under his own name Sir M conceded that the Ripper was not known to police for 'some years after' he killed himself -- which did not happen 'the same evening' as the last murder (as the MP wrongly thought) -- and he does not claim he was a doctor.

Fat lot of good it did him ...