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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[Bridewell]

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

Has he moved on from Feigenbaum then?

[lynn cates]

divorce

Hello Colin. Trevor dumped Feigenbaum some time ago.

Cheers.
LC