Conjecture vs 'evidence'

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So, I have my reservations about both Druitt & Kozminski being actually suspects at the time of the murders.

Can we be certain that Macnaghten even meant that they had been suspects in the aftermath of the murders?

He wrote:

I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders...

He does not call them three suspects.

Commenting on Kosminski, he wrote:

There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.

If he had been a suspect at the time, why the use of inverted commas?

[Paul Sutton]

Thanks to various for their replies.

Can I request brief answers to the five points - including 'zero' answers; or 'no I can't'; or 'No, I will not'; or 'how dare you cut me off mid-flow'.

Because I'm not after a reprise discussion of suspects/evidence, per se, but an indication of the state of play for each and - above all - some conjecture.

With all the delicacies here, I realise this may seem annoying. Of course, threads can go anywhere - but I started a very specifically focussed thread, for that purpose. If that's impossible, it says a lot.

To recap:

1. Please point to a thread where even a vague consensus has been reached, that a certain suspect becomes more likely, after discussing evidence.

2. Please point to a thread where cherry-picking of 'experts' isn't done. Or perhaps, where there's some consensus on an expert opinion; one which makes a specific suspect more likely

3. Please provide a list of what you see as the best evidence for each of these (of course, add your own).

1. William Bury
2. Montague Druitt
3. George Chapman
4. Francis Thompson
5. Charles Lechmere
6. Jimmy Savile

4. Please provide a piece of witness evidence that seems beyond any dispute.

5. Please use all of the above to give your full conjecture on a suspect.


Thanks,

Paul

[Wickerman]

Can we be certain that Macnaghten even meant that they had been suspects in the aftermath of the murders?

He wrote:

I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders...

He does not call them three suspects.

Commenting on Kosminski, he wrote:

There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.

If he had been a suspect at the time, why the use of inverted commas?

Yes, I remember one interpretation was suggested along the lines of 'if Cutbush is a good suspect, I can pick three names out of the air that would be better suspects than him', or words to that effect.
Not to say those three random names were ever real suspects, the meaning was they are/were as remote a suspect as you could find.

I'm not sure if that works, because aside from Ostrog, the other two had some cause, even if after the fact, and to some extent misguided?, to be regarded as suspects.
So, I don't see how that interpretation works.

Funny thing is, as Druitt was the first real suspect that researchers got their teeth into, I think it would be terrific if he turned out to be the real JtR, and it still is not out of the question. Not one researcher has been able to find something that eliminates him as a potential suspect.

With Kozminski this is also true, but his mental state in 1888, according to existing records, shows a perfectly normal person. It's his illness that is the most qualifying factor, but that condition is only apparent later in life after the murders. And we know he was not Anderson's personal suspect up to Oct. 1888, as he declared in writing there were no suspects. Kozminski was only 23 in 1888, far too young to fit the few good witness descriptions in the case.

[Scott Nelson]

How could you have imagined that an unemployed hairdresser could have been working in Butchers' Row and also been the owner of a number of shops?

Because it wasn't an unemployed hairdresser.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Because it wasn't an unemployed hairdresser.

You mean he was not Aaron Kosminski and you mean Swanson was wrong about him being Kosminski?

And if he was not an unemployed hairdresser, how could he have worked in Butchers' Row and also owned or managed a number of shops?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You mean he was not Aaron Kosminski and you mean Swanson was wrong about him being Kosminski?

And if he was not an unemployed hairdresser, how could he have worked in Butchers' Row and also owned or managed a number of shops?

You have since posted a comment on another thread, but you cannot respond here after an hour and twenty five minutes?

[rjpalmer]

With Kozminski this is also true, but his mental state in 1888, according to existing records, shows a perfectly normal person. It's his illness that is the most qualifying factor, but that condition is only apparent later in life after the murders.

As a reminder, Aaron Kozminski's Colney Hatch admission records (1891) state that he was "six years insane".

That would date his insanity to 1885---three years before the murders.

[Wickerman]

As a reminder, Aaron Kozminski's Colney Hatch admission records (1891) state that he was "six years insane".

That would date his insanity to 1885---three years before the murders.

Ah, thankyou. So when he appeared in court about the dog issue, he was insane then?
He seemed to conduct himself without drawing undue attention.

[Single-O-Seven]

Ah, thankyou. So when he appeared in court about the dog issue, he was insane then?
He seemed to conduct himself without drawing undue attention.

I suppose it all depends on one's interpretation of insanity, which was likely much more loose in 1891. If he was schizophrenic, it can be an evolving illness that grows worse with time. In the earliest days, he may have had periods of muttering to himself, for instance, when lost in his delusions, but when before a group of people, such as in court, he would have been more focused and the delusions may not have crept in as easily. He may have even struggled deliberately to maintain some composure, especially knowing he was before people who were literally judging him. That can and often does change over time, and that level of control tends to weaken. I speak from experience.

[Wickerman]

As a reminder, Aaron Kozminski's Colney Hatch admission records (1891) state that he was "six years insane".

That would date his insanity to 1885---three years before the murders.

Ah, yes, this was that controversial date change.
The entry originally read "not dangerous to others", and "duration of existing attack 6 months", but that was changed to "years".
Rob House thinks the revision was more accurate, but doesn't say why.

Some forms of insanity come in spats that can last weeks or months, perhaps that is all the note was suggesting?
Changing the spate of a recent attack to 6 years seems an extreme oversight.
These institutions kept a diary of daily reports on each patient, there would be volumes of paperwork if he was insane for 6 years, but, what can you do?
It says, what it says.

I should have read a bit further.

The cause of his deemed "insanity" is given as "self abuse", this was viewed in the 19th century as an act of insanity....

So, is the argument that Kozminski could have been Jack the Ripper because of his preference for self abuse?

[Wickerman]

I suppose it all depends on one's interpretation of insanity, which was likely much more loose in 1891. If he was schizophrenic, it can be an evolving illness that grows worse with time. In the earliest days, he may have had periods of muttering to himself, for instance, when lost in his delusions, but when before a group of people, such as in court, he would have been more focused and the delusions may not have crept in as easily. He may have even struggled deliberately to maintain some composure, especially knowing he was before people who were literally judging him. That can and often does change over time, and that level of control tends to weaken. I speak from experience.

Rob House's book, Jack the Ripper and the case for Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect, on page 189 reads:
"The subsequent Asylums Act of 1845 gives a legal and medical definition for different classes of "insane" person.
(Rob writes 'three" classes, but it reads like two).
An "idiot" or "imbecile" was a person 'non compos mentis' = not of sound mind, incurable.
Where "not of sound mind" was someone who by reason of a morbid condition of intellect is incapable of managing himself or his affairs.
A "lunatic" was a person who was previously 'sane', but now suffers from a temporary or permanent mental disability.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Ah, yes, this was that controversial date change.
The entry originally read "not dangerous to others", and "duration of existing attack 6 months", but that was changed to "years"

Changing the spate of a recent attack to 6 years seems an extreme oversight.
These institutions kept a diary of daily reports on each patient, there would be volumes of paperwork if he was insane for 6 years, but, what can you do?

Why would the asylum have paperwork relating to Kosminski's insanity during the six years prior to his admission?

Maybe his most recent attack was of six months' duration at the time of his admission, but he had been ill for six years.

[Wickerman]

Why would the asylum have paperwork relating to Kosminski's insanity during the six years prior to his admission?

Maybe his most recent attack was of six months' duration at the time of his admission, but he had been ill for six years.

Records concerning the patients history are transferred with him.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Records concerning the patients history are transferred with him.

But how do we know there were any earlier hospital records?

[Wickerman]

But how do we know there were any earlier hospital records?

Because only a doctor can admit a patient to an Asylum, it also takes a Justice of the Peace to admit a patient to Colney Hatch.
The patient must have medical records in order to move into the Asylum system, and be moved from one to another.
It was J.P. Henry Chamber who's signature put Kozminski in Colney Hatch.