Evidence to prove a suspect valid

[GUT]

But we also have to seriously consider these suspects as the police clearly knew more than we do 125 years later. We can't just cast them aside.

[Wickerman]

But if we take your above measure into account, we can flip the coin over. Why did Anderson describe a Jewish suspect that Swanson called Kosminski, if Druitt was such a good subject?

The police opinions (Anderson, Macnaghten, Littlechild, Abberline, etc.), are all private opinions, not official police opinion.
No surviving paperwork indicates the police collectively held one single opinion towards any suspect.

And, even though Swanson named Kosminski, his careful choice of words can easily indicate that he was not offering his own opinion, but merely clarifying Anderson's opinion.
Swanson never voiced an opinion on the identity of the murderer.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi tomtom,I think the conclusion from this must be that there wasn't any real evidence against Druitt or kosminski I think Druitt is the most tantalising because of this "private information" and also the story of the killer drowning himself in the Thames appeared a few weeks after the Kelly murder.

Although I typically eschew family lore, or at least accept it with a grain of salt, I wonder if there isn't something to Macnaghten's daughter's statement that her father made most of that up. I seriously doubt there was any 'private information' other than loose suspicion and probably no papers were burned.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Errata]

So we can conclude that we can make no conclusions about the existence of evidence pointing to any suspect...

This is why I don't bother with suspects.

[TomTomKent]

Hi tomtom,I think the conclusion from this must be that there wasn't any real evidence against Druitt or kosminski <SNIP>.

I disagree. The only conclusion we can make, because any evidence the Police had for any suspect is missing and we have no records indicating what was included is that we do not know what evidence, or how much evidence there was.

We have evidence indicating there was possibly a witness identification of a suspect as well as the evidence that placed the suspect under investigation, but we can not conclude a lack of evidence.

If we do not have information to hand it is far wiser to state we have no grounds to reach a conclusion than to simply conclude the data would be a negative result. At best we can state that none of the available theories overcome a null.

[pinkmoon]

It makes it possible, and that is fair speculation, but the same could be said of other suspects named by those who were closer to the investigation. I would still suggest that even if a number of people in any organisation are given the same evidence (and multiple options) not all will agree to a consensus. (Often they will, sometimes they wont.) I can't see Policemen being exempt from human failings and traits.

But if we take your above measure into account, we can flip the coin over. Why did Anderson describe a Jewish suspect that Swanson called Kosminski, if Druitt was such a good subject?

There is no doubt a lot of evidence lost, that would have made the named suspects viable avenues of investigation. They got on the list somehow. We have no idea which was supported by what (lost) evidence. So we can either measure up which officer we think was in the best place to know, or we can assume all had their reasons to place one of the suspects as their most likely.

I do believe this is one the situations Terry Pratchett described as: "If two drawves sit at a bar and talk about any subject they will walk away with three points of view".

Hi tomtom,I think the conclusion from this must be that there wasn't any real evidence against Druitt or kosminski I think Druitt is the most tantalising because of this "private information" and also the story of the killer drowning himself in the Thames appeared a few weeks after the Kelly murder.

[TomTomKent]

Hi Tom Tom ,I know there are retired and serving police officers on this forum and I'm sure they would all agree if any one had any hard evidence on kosminski or any one else it would be known .Sir Melville joined the police force after the ripper murders he would have been privy to some information and I think druitt was picked out obviously because of this "private information" I'm sure when Druitts name came to the police's attention some form of enquires must have taken place basic things like where was he on the nights of the murders Druitt been free on these nights dosnt make him jtr

It makes it possible, and that is fair speculation, but the same could be said of other suspects named by those who were closer to the investigation. I would still suggest that even if a number of people in any organisation are given the same evidence (and multiple options) not all will agree to a consensus. (Often they will, sometimes they wont.) I can't see Policemen being exempt from human failings and traits.

But if we take your above measure into account, we can flip the coin over. Why did Anderson describe a Jewish suspect that Swanson called Kosminski, if Druitt was such a good subject?

There is no doubt a lot of evidence lost, that would have made the named suspects viable avenues of investigation. They got on the list somehow. We have no idea which was supported by what (lost) evidence. So we can either measure up which officer we think was in the best place to know, or we can assume all had their reasons to place one of the suspects as their most likely.

I do believe this is one the situations Terry Pratchett described as: "If two drawves sit at a bar and talk about any subject they will walk away with three points of view".

[pinkmoon]

Why?

It is entirely possible that Melville was not in the best place to know facts obtained after the case was officially closed, especially if no charges were brought and the suspect were dead or in an asylum.

It is unreasonable to expect all individuals to automatically reach the same conclusion, or to be equally informed within one organisation, let alone across two police forces.

Hi Tom Tom ,I know there are retired and serving police officers on this forum and I'm sure they would all agree if any one had any hard evidence on kosminski or any one else it would be known .Sir Melville joined the police force after the ripper murders he would have been privy to some information and I think druitt was picked out obviously because of this "private information" I'm sure when Druitts name came to the police's attention some form of enquires must have taken place basic things like where was he on the nights of the murders Druitt been free on these nights dosnt make him jtr

[TomTomKent]

If kosminski was such a good suspect why did sir Melville pick Druitt over him?I think hand on heart we have to admit that all of the names that have been put forward as our killer over the years are all innocent of these appalling crimes.If the police had anything on anyone we would know and this suspect would be a common thread through all the police forces .

Why?

It is entirely possible that Melville was not in the best place to know facts obtained after the case was officially closed, especially if no charges were brought and the suspect were dead or in an asylum.

It is unreasonable to expect all individuals to automatically reach the same conclusion, or to be equally informed within one organisation, let alone across two police forces.

[pinkmoon]

If kosminski was such a good suspect why did sir Melville pick Druitt over him?I think hand on heart we have to admit that all of the names that have been put forward as our killer over the years are all innocent of these appalling crimes.If the police had anything on anyone we would know and this suspect would be a common thread through all the police forces .By picking a knife up two years after the murders and threatening a family member and then having lived in the area during the murders made kosminski a suspect the police were just desperate a slight lead is better than no lead.

[pinkmoon]

If kosminski was such a good suspect why did sir Melville pick Druitt over him?I think hand on heart we have to admit that all of the names that have been put forward as our killer over the years are all innocent of these appalling crimes.If the police had anything on anyone we would know and this suspect would be a common thread through all the police forces .

[Paddy]

Probably the alley behind he P.I.A Gapnaham Boot &amp; Shoe Manufacturing Company

Hi Scott any reason you could share?

Pat...........................

[Scott Nelson]

Probably the alley behind he P.I.A Gapnaham Boot & Shoe Manufacturing Company. The murderer probably hung around Fieldgate Street.

[Paddy]

Pipe Man

Does anybody think pipe man could have been an undercover detective?

Soon after Sargeant Stephen White's death an article appeared in the "People's Journal" relating to the Whitechapel murders. It was written in the first person and tells how White and two other men had for five nights "been watching a certain alley just behind the Whitechapel Road. It could only be entered from where we had two men posted in hiding. . ."

White had come to hear the two officers latest report and "I was turning away when I saw a man coming out of the alley. He was walking quickly..." White got a good look at the man and tried to engage him in conversation without much success. As the man walked away "one of the police officers came out of the house he had been in, and walked a few paces into the darkness of the alley. 'Hello! What is this?' he cried..." The police officer had discovered "a body of a woman, and a pool of blood was streaming along the gutter from her body". White tried to catch up with the man he had seen "but he was lost to sight in the dark labyrinth of the East End mean streets.

Wasn't it Sargeant Stephen White that was on Liz Stride case? Could The Nelson pub been the hideout?

Could it have been Kosminski that followed Schwartz down Berner street?
Halfway down the bottom of Berner street between the row of houses is an alley to the left that leads directly out into Providence street opposite Woolf Abrahams house. So Schwartz statement that the man did not follow him all the way down would fit....

Pat................................

[Wickerman]

Responsible speculation at least identifies the "if" and does not then claim proof to be built on such a foundation, only suspicion and speculation.

The most important point about an "if" is that it is the beginning of an enquiry, not the end.
Responsible theorists do not draw conclusions from an "if", responsible theorists use an "if" to embark on a new line of enquiry.