Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
    Hello Colin. Trevor dumped Feigenbaum some time ago.

    Cheers.
    LC
    I hope he did it with compassion
    "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

    Comment


    • #77
      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

      Comment


      • #78
        Well said Mayerling

        I hope that said illness buggers right off with the swiftness. Also, Edison was a punk. Go Tesla! As it pertains to the topic of this thread, unfortunately a few of these suspects could probably be found guilty by a jury. Especially in this country. Ever watch Dateline or the like? Reasonable doubt gets thrown upon the bonfire. Which really gets my paranoia burning.
        Valour pleases Crom.

        Comment


        • #79
          Thanks for the friendly message "heading", Digalittle. The intestinal matter is under control, and so far has only meant testing and doctor visits. At the moment it is only altering my summer plans a bit, but not much.

          As for Thomas Alva, I agree with your assessment that the grand Nicola was the real rock star between the two (despite the former's remarkable streak of patents), but Tesla never made (as far as I know) a similar comment to Edison. Possibly he did not have to. Edison was largely self taught (amazingly so) while Tesla had a degree (I think in physics). So Tesla could work out his ideas theoretically faster and surer than Edison could.

          Yes, when I see the results (in convictions AND ACQUITTALS) in this country and abroad, I sweat a bit too. Right now I wonder what is going to happen in Florida with Zimmermann.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
            I hope he did it with compassion
            Hi
            Just for the record I have not dumped Feigenabaum. I simply re-evaluated his suspect status, based on other facts and information which emerged after I first looked into him.

            Feigenbaum must still be regarded as a suspect. However whether he was responsible for one, some, or all of the murders we may never know.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              Hi
              Just for the record I have not dumped Feigenabaum. I simply re-evaluated his suspect status, based on other facts and information which emerged after I first looked into him.

              Feigenbaum must still be regarded as a suspect. However whether he was responsible for one, some, or all of the murders we may never know.
              Just for the record, to argue a case for any particular suspect, including Feigenabaum, it takes courage. You rock in that aspect Trevor.

              Sincerely,

              Mike
              The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
              http://www.michaelLhawley.com

              Comment


              • #82
                [First of all, let me state that I am NOT a lawyer (and do not play one on TV) and do not know the English judicial system that well. (Current jury instructions for instance & rules of evidence; let alone what would have been used in the 1880s and '90s.). However, I have served on a couple of American juries and will let that knowledge & experience guide me. If there are any pertinent differences, please let me know!]

                I believe that of the so-far named suspects (as opposed to basic 'types'), the best case that could be made to a jury for what we call 'Jack the Ripper' with the information that we currently have available is probably whoever 'David Cohen' was, as per Martin Fido's reasoning. The second best case is probably Aaron Kosminski. The case against Druitt might be stronger if we knew why (or even actually if) his family or who suspected him. Was it just a case of some blood found on clothing after he died? Being sacked for hitting one of the boys? A supressed confession? Or "that crazy Druitt kid offed himself. Must have been JTR!!!"-type gossip alleged as coming from the family (gee, cousin of the brother-in-law could be considered 'family')? I really think MJD being fired is probably completely irrelevent to the suspicions, other than in a basic it's all showing "he's Nuts like his mum" reasoning.

                Of course, 'Cohen' and Kosminski were judged insane and therefore unable to stand trial. There's a good chance that Druitt probably would have been judged insane if somehow he had been prevented from suicide and charged (attempted suicide was a crime then, remember?).

                I wouldn't even try to charge ANYONE else with currently available information, although there's a chance a few (Kidney, Joe Barnett, John Kelly) might have a good case for the particular murder that they were personally connected with on the basis that "the boyfriend/husband is ALWAYS the first suspect". Cross/Lechmere and George Hutchinson might come in for some more serious scrutiny than they got at the time, but I never hear of Diemshitz ever being supsected for pretty much the same opportunity. Was MM serious about suggesting Ostrog, was there some sort of confusion about him or was that just a case of how BAD MM thought the case against CUTBUSH that someone in a French Prison was more likely than him? Any of the other contemporary suspects were looked at and dismissed for various reasons. And most of the modern 'celebrity' suspects actually would have a pretty good libel/slander case based on some of the acusations made against them.

                "And what is your evidence against Mr. Sickert?" "It's this painting Your Honor, with the title of 'Jack the Ripper's Bedroom" (Jury gasps) (Judge (to self): Well, there goes MY day. Why do I get the loonies?)

                Would you want to be CONVICTED (these people aren't just making accusations to a jury and judge, they are serving as prosecutor, jury, judge and executioner) of mass murder because someone jumped on a table and claimed "I've done Forensics!" or someone else saying "Look at his eyes. That's one evil bastard." The ONLY reason that these claims are even being made is that the authors can sell books to the gullible and make $$.

                And the game goes on.
                Last edited by C. F. Leon; 06-29-2013, 06:26 PM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  My view is that there is not a substantial proveable case in law against anyone.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by mklhawley View Post
                    Just for the record, to argue a case for any particular suspect, including Feigenabaum, it takes courage. You rock in that aspect Trevor.

                    Sincerely,

                    Mike
                    You think?

                    Monty
                    Monty

                    https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                    Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      I believe there is quite a deal of good evidence to be gained from the information given by various people involved in the W hitechapel killings.That I personnly favour Mckenzie as a ripper victim,means I am not limited to the canonical five ,a red herring if ever there was one,so can ignore the inclusion of several well fancied candidates for the ripper.I also remove from the equation the opinion that the killer would not change method or venue,and I certainly ignore the information that tends to give what I consider abnormal qualities to individuals.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Hatchett View Post
                        My view is that there is not a substantial proveable case in law against anyone.
                        I would agree with that.

                        I can't see how someone who was never named in connection with the case, and it follows thus lacking any scrap of evidence against him, could be even tried in a court of law; let alone found guilty.

                        There is more on Kosminski as he was actually named by an officer in a position to know, except we do not know the evidence against Kosminski - only that he was identified - we don't even know that which the witness saw. Again, I can't believe a court of law would convict Kosminski on the basis of what we know.

                        I still feel Kosminski is the number 1 suspect based upon what we know, but Cutbush is a very dark horse indeed who could do with more research.

                        The problem with pinning it on anyone is that it seems the evidence/documents needed are simply not in existence anymore.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Druitt's father and brother Lionel were surgeons Montague was a non-practicing lawyer. I personally don't make much of the suicide as evidence he was the ripper. It was known there was mental instability in his mother's family. She, in fact, also committed suicide. I surmise he topped himself because he thought he was going to end up like her.
                          Neil "Those who forget History are doomed to repeat it." - Santayana

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            If I had to pick one thing about Druitt it would be the fact that his brother had no problem in revealing that mother was in an asylum big stigma in modern days let alone then.
                            Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by YankeeSergeant View Post
                              Druitt's father and brother Lionel were surgeons Montague was a non-practicing lawyer. I personally don't make much of the suicide as evidence he was the ripper. It was known there was mental instability in his mother's family. She, in fact, also committed suicide. I surmise he topped himself because he thought he was going to end up like her.
                              Where do you get the "non-practicing" lawyer part, he seems to have been gong pretty well with his legal practice based on the few reports we have,.
                              G U T

                              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by RavenDarkendale View Post
                                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?
                                Raven, this is from William Beadle’s dissertation here on Casebook:

                                “According to a Dundee lawyer who reviewed the case against him which I outlined in the Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper:

                                ‘Based on the evidence presented here, a Crown Prosecution of William Bury for the Ripper murders would have had every chance of success.’”

                                So in the opinion of at least one lawyer, one of the suspects here could indeed be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the Ripper murders.
                                “When a major serial killer case is finally solved and all the paperwork completed, police are sometimes amazed at how obvious the killer was and how they were unable to see what was right before their noses.” —Robert D. Keppel and William J. Birnes, The Psychology of Serial Killer Investigations

                                William Bury, Victorian Murderer
                                http://www.williambury.org

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X