Evidence to prove a suspect valid

[RavenDarkendale]

I have a good question. Taking any of the suspects here, what is the one piece of evidence that has to be proven in order to make the suspicion valid?

For example James Maybrick. It would be safe to say that the Diary and/or watch would have to be proven genuine in order to cement Maybrick's status as a viable suspect. For Montague John Druitt it would have to be location, i.e. was he ever close enough to the scene to come into Whitechapel, commit the murders, and not arouse suspicion by his absence?

What do you think seals your favorite suspect as top of the list?

God Bless

Darkendale

[Errata]

I don't have a suspect. But when I look at the usual means, motive, and opportunity with suspect presentations, sometimes I feel certain things are lacking. Means is easy. Everyone had access to a knife. And anyone could take the time to familiarize themselves with the neighborhood enough to not stick out or run into dead ends. So that still leaves every male in London, and maybe 2% of women. Opportunity is tough, because we don't actually know everyone's disposition on the nights in question. We could have a suspect who is perfect in every way who went to go visit his mother in Devon for two days on Nov. 8. We would have no way of knowing about that, and it would clear them. Or maybe a suspect had a broken arm. I mean there are any number of things that clear a suspect and none of these things were recorded. Eating bad fish is just as crippling as a broken back for a guy who is going to commit these kinds of murders. But unless he dies of the food poisoning, we'll never know.

For me it's motive. It's not just why would a man want to kill a woman. It's why a man would want to kill these kinds of women in this particular way. Being violent isn't good enough. Thousands of men were violent towards women and they never did anything like this. Being crazy isn't good enough. 98% of crazy is non violent. You could have a guy who was insane, but he talked to bunnies. How does that translate into the mutilation of prostitutes? Not to point out the the obvious, but a guy really has to want to do this in order to do this. It's not a whim. I feel like if you are going to accuse a dead man of being one of the most notorious murderers in history, you should really back it up with something more than the equivalent of "Who knows why anyone does anything?". We know why people do things like this. Present a good argument.

[Patrick S]

Speaking personally, I don't think it's possible to have 'suspects'. At this point, it's only possible to research, theorize, discuss, argue. After all, isn't this - in the end - the appeal of Jack the Ripper?

As far as what kind of evidence would prove guilt, that's a very interesting question. I'm sure it would have to be some kind of physical evidence linking an individual to one or more of the killings. Something stored away for more than a century. I'm not sure what could be. Some kind of DNA evidence? I'm not sure what's possible, considering the time time that elapsed and degradation of blood evidence, hair, etc.

[caz]

For me it's motive. It's not just why would a man want to kill a woman. It's why a man would want to kill these kinds of women in this particular way. Being violent isn't good enough. Thousands of men were violent towards women and they never did anything like this. Being crazy isn't good enough. 98% of crazy is non violent. You could have a guy who was insane, but he talked to bunnies. How does that translate into the mutilation of prostitutes? Not to point out the the obvious, but a guy really has to want to do this in order to do this. It's not a whim. I feel like if you are going to accuse a dead man of being one of the most notorious murderers in history, you should really back it up with something more than the equivalent of "Who knows why anyone does anything?". We know why people do things like this. Present a good argument.

Good point, Errata.

This is why I continue to challenge the various arguments for separate killers for Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, for example.

We don't really need to focus on motive if we allow for one sick bastard who kept his violent fantasies well hidden from everyone on the planet - even his victims, who died with little or no awareness of becoming the next ripper victim.

But motive must be a real bugger for those who see men leaping out of every dark corner to do horrible mindless violence to Spitalfields women who are out and about at night, supposedly minding their own business - but only in a few East End streets mind, and only over the course of a few weeks in 1888.

Would have to be something horrid in the local water, only affecting males...

Love,

Caz
X

[Errata]

Good point, Errata.

This is why I continue to challenge the various arguments for separate killers for Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, for example.

We don't really need to focus on motive if we allow for one sick bastard who kept his violent fantasies well hidden from everyone on the planet - even his victims, who died with little or no awareness of becoming the next ripper victim.

But motive must be a real bugger for those who see men leaping out of every dark corner to do horrible mindless violence to Spitalfields women who are out and about at night, supposedly minding their own business - but only in a few East End streets mind, and only over the course of a few weeks in 1888.

Would have to be something horrid in the local water, only affecting males...

Love,

Caz
X

Well, I lived in a city half the size of 1888 London, and we had three serial killers running around. More like 2 1/2, because one guy kills so rarely I think he's racked up all of four victims in 30 years. And there was another killer running around. That guy was dismembering women and sent a fetus down the Thames in a jar. So multiple serial killers is not uncommon in any area. It's unlikely that multiple serial killers were involved, but not impossible.

It's far more likely that it was a serial with a one off or two. Stride could have been killed by someone she pissed off. Which as a prostitute was not tough to do. There's nothing at her murder scene or about her body that suggests that Jack killed her. The suggestion comes from the idea that there can't possibly be two killers, and the retrospective idea that Eddowes murder was caused by Jack not finishing Stride. I mean, there were what, 15 throat cutting murders a year before Jack? Theres no reason for that number to slack off just because someone out there is doing it in a more spectacular fashion. In fact it's a very good way to not be suspected.

It's not about something in the water. It's about life going on as usual despite the presence of a serial killer. Certainly there have been any number of murders not committed by serial killers in cities where serial killers operate. I don't see why Victorian London should be different.

[GUT]

G'Day Errata

Means and opportunity take us nowhere, most of London had the means, and 125 years later we can't rule out opportunity for 90% of the population.

While motive might take us somewhere, the problem is that even with what I might call MODERN, SOLVED cases, motive is often still a real mystery, or "Because I wanted too".

GUT

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Raven. If by 'valid' you mean promote them from 'just some guy' to genuine suspect, then the best place to start would clearly be those who were suspected by someone in the police around the time of the murders. I would say someone who could be shown to have been in the area, possibly known to one or more of the victims, and who later...even years later...did something that showed he was capable of such murders, might also be a suspect.

Or, of course, any well-known artist with ties to the royal family.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

Or, of course, any well-known artist with ties to the royal family.

Or witness
Or Mason

GUT

[Tom_Wescott]

G'Day Tom



Or witness
Or Mason

GUT

That goes without saying. If we find a witness who was a Mason and mean with a brush and canvass I'd say we could put this baby to bed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

I think you mean:

If we find a witness who was a Mason and mean with a brush and canvass And had ties to the Royal Family I'd say we could put this baby to bed.

GUT

[Tom_Wescott]

G'Day Tom

I think you mean:

If we find a witness who was a Mason and mean with a brush and canvass And had ties to the Royal Family I'd say we could put this baby to bed.

GUT

You're right. I should have been more thorough. Gotta stick to the facts, after all.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[MrBarnett]

Just for the record, Rolf spent the whole of the autumn of 1888 with me in the Outer Hebrides.

And if you don't believe me, look it up in the Daily News.

MrB.

[GUT]

G'Day MrB

So:

You hang out with Mason's with paint brushes!!

I'm now suspicious of you.

Funny though my Grandmothers next door neighbor new Rolf in Perth where as a young man he was a very good swimmer, so maybe just maybe you and he swam back to England. It's really not that far, honest.

[MrBarnett]

GUT,

He did all the swimming. I just clung on to his didgeridoo...

MrB.

[GUT]

Down Under we say Digerdon't