Some thoughts, after a year's study:

[Jonathan H]

To the Fish

I thought that was an excellent post and definitely food for thought.

To some extent police were looking for a maniac, or somebody who stood out as capable of such atrocities. Not your average East End scrounger.

Due to the low esteem in which I am held here I am sorry if that puts other people off.

Peer review refers to people who have established academic qualifications-institutional authority, and who assess another academic's research in the same field.

It does not really apply here as every writer is a journeyperson, eg. they are journalists, ex-police persons and un-tenured academics.

Does that mean they can't write a decent work of history?

Not at all. I think some of these books are [unsung] masterpieces of historical analysis.

But that is not the same as Peer Review, which in its exact meaning is not really applicable.

[Phil H]

So that immensely long post was, I take it, a way of saying I won't subject my thesis to review by acknowledged experts?

And you confiirm that you are not, for all your bluster and aggression, not really confident of your ground?

Phil

[Fisherman]

Colin:

"How does circumstantial evidence make Lechmere - or anyone else for that matter - a good suspect?"

You mean you donīt know? Hereīs an entry from the net:

"Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact, like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.
On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt)."

People have been convicted on circumstantial evidence only. People have been hung on it. If circumstantial evidence was not enough to make a case in court, then why do you think the term even exists?

How, for that matter, does finding out that his (Lechmere's) mother lived in the Pinchin Street area convince you that Stride was, after all, a Ripper murder, when previously you believed otherwise?

Ah, Colin! But where am I saying that I am convinced that Stride WAS a Ripper victim? And when did I say that I was convinced that she was NOT? You see, I never did either, and the reason is simple: I could not know as such. I could guess, based on the surrounding circumstances, and when I gueesed that she was not a Ripper victim, I had not yet accepted that Lechmere was the best bid for the killerīs role. And when I accepted this, the knowledge that Lechmere had spent most of his life in the Berner Street vicinity, coupled with the finding that he had good reason to visit the area at the exact hours when Stride died made me reconsider. It is a case of a good logical case being overtaken by a better logical case. And, as Iīve said before, if Lechmere goes down in flames as a Ripper contender, then itīs back to square one again.

Is it possible that Lechmere killed Nichols? Yes. But there is no evidence that he did so; none whatsoever.

But there IS, remember: circumstantial evidence! He was ther, he gave the wrong name, he fooled the coppers by the looks of things, the pulled clothing, the unseizing bleeding from Nicholsīneck - this is all circumstantial evidence pointing in his direction. You will be happy to learn that I donīt think it is enough to convict him. Thatīs why I say that I think it probable - not certain - that Charles Lechmere was the killer.

"As you well know, Phil isn't asking the permission of others to think what he does. He is advocating a process of peer review wherein you present your case to acknowledged experts in the field so that they can test the evidence. That's a perfectly reasonable suggestion isn't it, especially if you are confident that you can present an argument capable of standing up to such rigorous examination? I personally don't think there's any evidence to support a case for Lechmere as Ripper, but what I think is of no consequence. What the leading authorities in the field think, though, is another matter. Why not treat Phil's suggestion as a serious proposition?"

To begin with, because the four gents he mentioned do not see eye to eye on all matters Ripper. To carry on, I do take his suggestion as a serious proposition. Iīm sure Philīs dead serious - he normally is. But taking it as a GOOD proposition is another thing altogether. For the record, I donīt think the four men mentioned have actually given any verdict on the Lechmere theory, and I am not certain that this represents any silent thrashing.

Itīs all very fine to listen to authorities on the case. But in the end, we all need to be big boys when presenting a theory, if we genuinely believe that we are correct. And in Lechmere, we have a unique case. All the authorities of the case may well say unanimously "We donīt think he did it", but that wonīt change the given facts. Nobody can dispute that a number of things are in place as regards Lechmere. He DID spend time alone with a victim. He DID give the wrong name to the police. He WAS reported to have told Mizen an untruth. He DID have a working trek that would have taken him close to the murder spots, but for two of them. And these spots WOULD be easy to explain by other circumstances attaching to Lechmere.
Authority or not, nobody can change these things. And no matter how we look on it, we can be totally sure that if the police had secured access to the material we have access to today, it would have turned Lechmere into a very promising suspect in their eyes.

No authority on earth would have any rational reason to deny that. And how do I know this? Have I asked them all? No, I have not. So I make my case on circumstantial evidence, Colin ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

The day you can persuade Stewart, Don Rumbelow, Paul Begg, Martin Fido and their ilk, to accept your contentions, I'll think again.

Phil
So you will only accept things if these men approve? No decisions of your own? Ask others permission to accept, is that it?

Okay.

The best,
Fisherman

As you well know, Phil isn't asking the permission of others to think what he does. He is advocating a process of peer review wherein you present your case to acknowledged experts in the field so that they can test the evidence. That's a perfectly reasonable suggestion isn't it, especially if you are confident that you can present an argument capable of standing up to such rigorous examination? I personally don't think there's any evidence to support a case for Lechmere as Ripper, but what I think is of no consequence. What the leading authorities in the field think, though, is another matter. Why not treat Phil's suggestion as a serious proposition?

[Bridewell]

I noticed, by the way, that you failed to produce a better circumstantially grounded suspect ...? Big surprise. Big, BIG surprise!!

Christer,

How does circumstantial evidence make Lechmere - or anyone else for that matter - a good suspect? How, for that matter, does finding out that his (Lechmere's) mother lived in the Pinchin Street area convince you that Stride was, after all, a Ripper murder, when previously you believed otherwise? The facts of the murder haven't changed. You've found out an interesting snippet of information about your suspect's family and back-converted Stride. Is it possible that Lechmere killed Nichols? Yes. But there is no evidence that he did so; none whatsoever.

[Phil H]

Fisherman, I make no claims for myself - my opinions count for nothing, except to me. It may be difficult for you to understand but I have no ego invested in JtR studies. I am as you know, committed to scholarly standards and the academic approach/historical method. I get irritated sometimes if that is not adhered to. Distinctions are, in fact, terribly important. But MY personal evaluation of your ideas is surely not an issue.

However, I listed some of the experts in Ripper studies whose views I respect, for their scholarship, judgement and what they have demonstrated in terms of commitment to this field. Those gentlemen are, as a group, in my opinion the bench-mark against which any serious "Ripperologist" should be judged. I might equally have chosen some of our respected researchers, whose views on any Ripper-related issue I would value.

So I simply set you a bar (like a high-jumper) - you can publicly seek their opinion and see how they respond, should you wish. If they (even two of them) express unqualified support for your thesis, I promise you I will undertake a serious re-evaluation of your ideas. I am sure that others, in those circumstances, might also think again.

You are the one making the assertions. The ball is now in your court.

Phil

[Graham]

Seems, madam! Nay, it is; I know not 'seems'.

Hamlet

Graham

[Fisherman]

Surely those are not too bold things to state?

Sorry, Fisherman, they are for me.

Perhaps I prefer English understatement.

"They" refer to two things, Phil:

1. I personally think Lechmere was the killer. Any problems with that?
2. Lechmere is the suspect to whom the most circumstantial evidence attaches. Any problems with that?

We both know both apply.

The day you can persuade Stewart, Don Rumbelow, Paul Begg, Martin Fido and their ilk, to accept your contentions, I'll think again.

Phil

So you will only accept things if these men approve? No decisions of your own? Ask others permission to accept, is that it?

Okay.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

Surely those are not too bold things to state?

Sorry, Fisherman, they are for me.

Perhaps I prefer English understatement.

The day you can persuade Stewart, Don Rumbelow, Paul Begg, Martin Fido and their ilk, to accept your contentions, I'll think again.

Phil

[Fisherman]

I posted a longer reply which the system lost!!!

Graham picked up my key point:

I think basically what I am challenging is the outright assertion of certainty in these modern theories - whether van Gogh or Sickert or any other. Trevor promoted his German suspect for a long time with utter conviction, and now appears to have decided against it. What are we to make of that.

If these "theories" were put forward as tentative, as one among many, for discussion and debate, and with an open mind, then I have less difficulty. But the argument "this is the truth, I have found it" makes me run in the opposite direction. Sorry.

If you and Fisherman (in your respective posts supporting your theories) restated more often the fact that you are setting out: "a provisional historical solution. Others are also possible", I think i would have less cause to react.

Phil

Iīm sorry, but I donīt think I am going to pick up on that advice anytime soon, Phil. I have stated numerous times that others are possible. That is no secret. We all know it. That should be enough.

I have however NEVER stated that Lechmere must be the killer. THAT would have been good cause to get annoyed, I suppose. But I am going no further than to say that he is the one person who has the most circumstantial evidence going for him of all the suspects, and that I personally actually think that he WAS the killer.
Surely those are not too bold things to state? Both are true, and you would be quite aware of that.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

I posted a longer reply which the system lost!!!

Graham picked up my key point:

I think basically what I am challenging is the outright assertion of certainty in these modern theories - whether van Gogh or Sickert or any other. Trevor promoted his German suspect for a long time with utter conviction, and now appears to have decided against it. What are we to make of that.

If these "theories" were put forward as tentative, as one among many, for discussion and debate, and with an open mind, then I have less difficulty. But the argument "this is the truth, I have found it" makes me run in the opposite direction. Sorry.

If you and Fisherman (in your respective posts supporting your theories) restated more often the fact that you are setting out: "a provisional historical solution. Others are also possible", I think i would have less cause to react.

Phil

[Fisherman]

The problem, Phil, is that you ... keep asking for a level of conclusive evidence which is not possible, but is perfectly fair for a probable solution.

Now, why did I not come to think of that short and useful answer myself ...?

The best
Fisherman

[Jonathan H]

Druitt as the Ripper is not a modern theory.

It emerged in 1891, was [semi-fictionally] shared with the public from 1898, and was [broadly] confirmed by a police chief, in public in 1913 and 1914.

It was forgotten by 1923.

That can never be an absolute solution, not then and not now.

It is a provisional historical solution. Others are also possible.

The problem, Phil, is that you do not understand historical methodology and so you keep asking for a level of conclusive evidence which is not possible, but is perfectly fair for a probable solution.

[Fisherman]

But is that not something that applies to ALL theories advanced here, Phil?

[QUOTE]

[B]It does not apply to all threads, posts or discussions, because not all of us on Casebook promote "theories" - partial or all-encompassing.

U-huh. But I did not ask about that, did I?

Is there any theory at all that is based on "actual" evidence?

Well those advanced by the people involved in the case and at the time, have a standing that is different and more compelling than modern constructs. So Kosminski/Polish Jew; Druitt; Tumblety (as examples) are all good starting points in my view. THEIR orginators had access to more information than we have, could speak to witnesses, associates, family etc. They may not have been right, but they were there.

U-huh. But I did not ask about that, did I?

Are they not all - at best - based on circumstantial evidence?

No. Kosminski appears to have been watched. Material was collected as a result of the house-to house enquiries. All that produced evidence that could be double checked.

But you donīt even know that Kosminski was targetted as a result of that search, do you?

Just as we do not know much about MM's sources re Druitt (pace Jonathan) we have to assume that they had sources.

... but we do not know the quality of them. So it would be moot to promote them as being of good quality. Or bad quality. Or any quality. And donīt tell me that police sources were always good quality sources or that police work was always good quality work. Clearly, neither must apply.

We cannot know now why Swanson and Anderson seem to have been so certain about Kosminski. But those theories are part of the record and thus on a different basis to modern ideas.

Yep. And Smithīs sentiments, Abberlineīs ditto, Reidīs ditto etcetera are ALSO part of the record.

I am (very) aware that the idea that there must have been hard evidence relating to Kosminski one upon a time, but the truth of the matter is that having been a suspect does not necessarily mean this.

I'd dispute that. It is reasonable to assume ...

So what are you effectively doing here? Disputing or assuming? Or both?

The mathematical equation is an easy one: the ones that WERE suspects back then, were all so based on faulty grounds with the possible exception of one man only (unless there were more than one killer).

We cannot ignore contemoporary suspects.

Nor do I do so - I accept that they are there, and I allow for anybody to produce the evidence that would nail any of them.

There is the world of difference between a man of the time, in a position to know, citing Tumblety; and theorists today fingering Lechmere/Cross or Sickert (as examples).

Of course there is a difference. But WE seemingly know things they did not - or chose not to ponder. We know what "Cross" was called - they apparently didnīt. We know where his mother lived - they apparently did not bother to find out.

Plus the men back then who knew all them things did NOT know enough to catch their man. So letīs not get overly impressed.

So if you are looking for - as you put it - "actual" evidence, then you will find yourself at a complete loss in every case. Lechmere comes closest;

Have it your way.

Itīs not "my way". If it is - disprove me. Should be simple enough - all it takes is a suspect with more things pointing towards him.

I think basically what I am challenging is the outright assertion of certainty in these modern theories.

But I am NOT "certain" about Lechmere being the killer. I THINK he was.

If these "theories" were put forward as tentative, as one among many, for discussion and debate, and with an open mind, then I have less difficulty. But the argument "this is the truth, I have found it" makes me run in the opposite direction. Sorry.

Lechmere has more circumstantial evidence pointing against him than any other suspect. That IS the truth. He was the killer. That is EITHER the truth - or wrong.

Distinctions, distinctions ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Graham]

I think basically what I am challenging is the outright assertion of certainty in these modern theories - whether van Gogh or Sickert or any other. Trevor promoted his German suspect for a long time with utter conviction, and now appears to have decided against it. What are we to make of that.

If these "theories" were put forward as tentative, as one among many, for discussion and debate, and with an open mind, then I have less difficulty. But the argument "this is the truth, I have found it" makes me run in the opposite direction. Sorry.

Excellent point, Phil. I'm with you all the way.

Graham