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

[Hunter]

[B]The clue is surely in the word "perhaps". Prove the diary genuine - THEN let's consider Maybrick a tenable suspect.

You would think that would be the logical thing to do if one is to implicate a person for the committal of heinous crimes. But Ripperology operates by a different standard.

Its now come to the point where merely discovering that someone was in London at the time of the crimes is enough to add them as a legitimate Suspect.

Its been to that point for a long time... even for people who were likely somewhere else.

If the police at the time possessed nothing to indict anyone (since most of the evidence was compiled by them and the medical examiners) we will always be left with assumptions when it comes to specific individuals - some maybe appearing more credible than others.

[Michael W Richards]

Its funny that people consider speculation as "evidence". I saw a show the other day that was made recently, included Mike Covell, and was a study of Deeming to see if he actually was incarcerated at the time of the murders. This was being done to assess if he should be considered as suspect for the crimes.

Its now come to the point where merely discovering that someone was in London at the time of the crimes is enough to add them as a legitimate Suspect.

Being in London, or In Spitalfield, or in George Yard, or in Whitechapel, or anywhere within walking distance of the crimes proves only the close proximity to them, not the likelihood of criminality.

Its clear lots of people lived nearby, and its clear that few of them would have done something like these crimes.

[Limehouse]

Hi John

Ah, but reasonable doubt works both ways, There is reasonable doubt that either man is guilty. But, Sickert's letter writing, fascination with JtR, and some would say his ambiguously morbid art are reasonable evidence to support his guilt.
Raven

Reasonable evidence? To support a guilty verdict for the vicious murder of perhaps five women?? What kind of justice would that have been? This is real life, not Miss Marple. If convicted on the strength of this evidence, Sickert would have been hanged. Please people, start looking at a bit more of Sickert's art than just a few pictures and get real.

[Limehouse]

Hi Raven,
The only person who may have been under strong suspicion if facing a jury , who is among the suspects is Walter Sickert .
Pat Cornwall spent a lot of money, attempting to Prove that her suspect wrote at least one Ripper letter, and may have succeeded in identifying a batch of paper used by him that was in letter sent to the police.
That and the paintings, such as Jack the Rippers bedroom, and The Passing funeral, and his obsession with dead women, and the Ripper mode he often went in , wearing a red hanky, might at least worry a jury.
But to be honest none of the suspects are likely to have been our man.
Regards Richard.

Richard, I can't believe you are not having us on. There is more proof that Sickert was in France at the time of the murders than there is that he wrote any ripper letters. Painting pictures? Wearing red hankies? Oh please!

Obsession with dead women? What, a few paintings? Does that add up to an obession? Using the same argument, wouldn't you say that Miss Cornwell had an even greater obsession with dead bodies? After all, she's written dozens of books featuring dead bodies!

[Phil H]

Sickert's letter writing, fascination with JtR, and some would say his ambiguously morbid art are reasonable evidence to support his guilt.

Sickert was not considered a suspect at the time. Thus any asscoiation with the murders has to be by inference.

The basis you assert would surely argue that many painters novelists must have been murderers because they wrote about it, thought about it, talked about it. Utterly circumstanial.

And James Maybrick has the same reasonable doubt of his innocence, perhaps the Diary is genuine.

The clue is surely in the word "perhaps". Prove the diary genuine - THEN let's consider Maybrick a tenable suspect.

Phil H

[RavenDarkendale]

Hi John

Ah, but reasonable doubt works both ways, There is reasonable doubt that either man is guilty. But, Sickert's letter writing, fascination with JtR, and some would say his ambiguously morbid art are reasonable evidence to support his guilt. And James Maybrick has the same reasonable doubt of his innocence, perhaps the Diary is genuine.

As long as there are people who believe in the guilt of any suspect, there has to be a reason why. And with that reason comes reasonable doubt of innocence.

But it is certain nothing could be proven with the evidence as it stands. Would be exciting if someone discovered century old bag containing mementos, such as the rings taken from a victim, a mummified kidney, and a knife with fingerprints mark in long dried blood, wouldn't it?

Raven

[John Wheat]

To RavenDarkendale
We can't prove any suspect beyond reasonable doubt although it must be said that some suspects and theories are ridiculous. I don't see how Sickert or Maybrick could be described as "Not Proven". Sickert may have written a letter or two but so what. And the provenance of the Maybrick Diary could be described as dubious at best.

Cheers John

[Sally]

Nah, can't be done.

Well, not unless some startliing new evidence emerges. Assuming that doesn't happen, then, I'm afraid not.

I don't personally think that the problem is that we should be looking for a number of killers - counterintuitive, that. Although I could change my mind, who knows.

I think realistically that the problem is more likely to be that we simply don't have the evidence. Comparatively little remains of the original documentary evidence pertaining to the case. If that were not so, our understanding of the case would doubtless be very different. Perhaps then we'd know why Cross used that name in his dealings with the police; or why Hutchinson delayed for three days before coming forward (for instance).

Then, considering the many benefits of hindsight, we might just have a clue.

I don't look for suspects, singular or plural, largely because no case against a suspect can ever be proven as it stands. Any speculation must be severely limited by lack of known data. Its a fool's game, in short.

[Phil H]

No - with this rider: I feel we may be mis-reading some of the available information (in particular the Swanson marginalia) because we lack some of the data available to him and other senior officers at the time. Similarly we do not fully know the context and intent of the Macnagten file note and its apparent errors.

It is also possible that we are bing misdirected by giving inappropriate weight to some material/suspects (GSG as one example; in the past 20 years, the Diary) and too little to others (for instance the implications of his entering the backyard of 29 Hanbury St) and are thus distracted from analysing some material in what would be a more helpful way.

Finally, I have concluded - though I recognise that others scoff - that will will get nowhere in seeking to find a culprit for every murder in the frame, and would be better advised to look at individual murders and then see where that leads us. For instance Lechmere/Cross becomes a more credible suspect(IMHO) if one is not seeking to lay all the murders at his door. Similarly with stride, McKenzie and MJK.

Just my thoughts - I don't expect others to agree - but happy to discuss further.

Phil H

[Abby Normal]

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?

Simply-NO.


Love the name BTW-i am a big fan of all things Raven (the word, the bird, the football team, the poem etc)

[RavenDarkendale]

Not proven:

Walter Sickert, the eminent Ms Cornwell notwithstanding. Evidence has now been presented, seems very likely, but only addresses "Did Sickert write the JtR letters, at least, some of them?" It doesn't come close to "Was Sickert JtR?"

James Maybrick, proponents of the Diary notwithstanding, There is still very reasonable evidence that the Diary may be genuine, but actually tying Maybrick to it is problematical. I would foresee a long, drawn-out trial, with much testimony on handwriting samples, discussion of the will, the role played by Florence, etc. A not proven verdict is all I can see happening.

For several others the question of even proving them sane enough to stand trail comes into play.

For Jill the Ripper, you would first have to prove she even existed.

It would be very interesting to stage mock trials where juries had to make decisions based on the little evidence that there is for each suspect. A "not proven verdict would be probably the most for which we could hope...

[Iain Wilson]

With the evidence available to us at the moment, there are no suspects who could be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, here's an interesting question for you all; under Scots law there are three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty and not proven. Not proven is applied when a jury is not convinced of a defendent's innocence, but don't believe that there is enough evidence to offer a guilty verdict. Essentially, the preponderance of the evidence suggests guilt, but not beyond reasonable doubt.

With this in mind, what suspects would you throw a "not proven" at? Remember, this isn't a simple "I've a hunch he did it" - there must be evidence there, just not enough to convict!

[ChrisGeorge]

That's probably one of the very few statements 99% of us would agree on.

Best wishes,
Steve.

Thanks, Steve.

Chris

[Steven Russell]

Evidence is circumstantial at best in regard to every named suspect, and proponents of various suspects are apt to ignore or underplay exculpatory evidence.

Best regards

Chris

That's probably one of the very few statements 99% of us would agree on.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[ChrisGeorge]

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?

Evidence is circumstantial at best in regard to every named suspect, and proponents of various suspects are apt to ignore or underplay exculpatory evidence.

Best regards

Chris