Evidence to prove a suspect valid

[Errata]

G'Day Michael



I've never seen it, but do we know when the club closed?

Was it like other Victorian clubs where they had temporary residences for members?

[Michael W Richards]

I dont believe that there was an official closing time for the club, at least not on Saturdays after meetings, and to errata's point, we have the cottages in the passageway for one, and likely some accommodations inside the club.

And responding to Caz's point...."On the question of witness timings on and around Berner St that night, I never cease to be amazed by all the piffle talked (not by you I hasten to add). Firstly, it was nigh on impossible to think back and pinpoint a time exactly, when one was just minding one's own business and not expecting to be asked later when they were doing it. Secondly, most witnesses seem to have approximated to the nearest five minutes when estimating the time; others to the nearest quarter of an hour; some to the nearest half hour, depending on their individual circumstances.".....I can state that 2 witnesses from inside the club, where one used a clock to determine his arrival time back at the club (Kozebrodski), stated within 1 hour of the murder that "at approximately 12:40", and "about 10 minutes after half past twelve" respectively, that they were alerted to the body by Louis. Louis says he used a clock on the way home, thats why he could be sure he arrived at 1am. Yet Fanny Mortimer was at her door at 1am and saw or heard no-one, no cart...no Louis, arrive at that time. The street was empty, except for the young couple.

Oddly enough the members timings correspond almost exactly to the timing provided by Spooner...who by his account of his activities since leaving the pub, was by the body before 12:45am.

Seems to me the witnesses who gave times and had no timepiece to use just before doing so were club witnesses and Israel Schwartz, and funny enough, none of them have any corroberation. Eagle says he was inside the passage at 12:40, Lave says he was there at 12:40...and they apparently didnt see each other. No-one saw Louis arrive. No-one saw or heard a BSM or a Pipeman. We do have witnesses who can be corroborated...its just that Caz prefers to question everyones ability to tell time and accepts the uncorroborated accounts as the ones that are actually valid.

Piffle indeed.

Cheers

[TomTomKent]

By asking what makes a suspect valid I assume the thread asks what would be required to show a reasonable grounds for suspicion beyond "They had a pulse and were in London around the time of the murder".

For me it is simple. Evidence that objectively and with out speculation or a game of stacking "ifs" ties a person to the crimes, or the police investigation. Unfortunately because of the time lapsed since the crimes this is likely to be all we will ever have. We can no longer ask Swanson if he was sure he meant Kosminski or Anderson for more details than his memoirs hold. All we can reasonably hope to do is identify suspects and grade them by how reasonable their suspicion is based upon the available facts and evidence.

In recent years there have been a lot of books that have done a very good job of describing why a "suspect" is exactly the kind of person the author thinks Jack might have been, but that have failed to tie those suspects to the crimes with any evidence that withstands scrutiny.

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

Well put about the "ifs".

[TomTomKent]

G'Day Tom

Well put about the "ifs".

I should have noted that not all ifs weigh the same and some crush the life out of the "reasonable" suspicion rather quickly.

"If Kosminski was not the suspect Swanson remembered after the date then Cohen is a better fit for his description", for example is less damaging to stacked on a theory than: "If other people lied about where Robert Louis Stephenson was because he was famous and a Scotsman he might have done it."

This is by no means limited to the Whitechapel murders. Over on JREF I have wasted too much of my life arguing with JFK conspiracy theorists and 9/11 CT advocates because their "reasonable" suspicions hold true IF there was a Conspiracy and IF the film footage was altered and IF somebody might have been bullied into giving false evidence and IF such or such a person was part of a criminal group... There is a very strange tendency in historical mysteries to assume that an "if" repeated often enough can be assumed to be true for the sake of a coherent narrative.

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

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi TomTomKent. I agree with your words. The list of suspects that actually interests me is very short, because I need a good reason to entertain the thought of their guilt. The cases for many have gotten much weaker over the years. However, in a few cases, the argument has become stronger. So I believe such research should be encouraged and it's a shame that cynicism in recent years has led to a trend of maligning the suspect researcher. Obviously, outright fraud and lies should not be tolerated in the field. And fanaticism should be kept in check. But it seems to me that Ripperologists by and large are not as collectively open-minded as they once were and that's a shame. I would hope it's only a passing fad.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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.

[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................................

[Scott Nelson]

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

[Paddy]

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

Hi Scott any reason you could share?

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

[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 .

[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.

[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]

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]

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".