Some thoughts, after a year's study:

[Phil H]

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

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

Discussion of a contemporary or near contemporary suspect, or or sources such as the marginalia or the memorandum, do not require intellectual constructs. Using internal evidence from a document, questioning the document, is not the same as constructingan elaborate theory based on perhapess, maybes and the association of ideas which may or may not be related, speculation about motives etc etc. The scholarly apparatus questions the source. Digging deeper into the background can produced solid evidence. Any first year undergraduate reading history would tell you that. So when I used the word "some", I meant what I said.

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.

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

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 assumje that men like Anderson, Swanson and MM were rational, logical and professional. It is quite possible as I have said, that they were mistaken, but they left their views and as historians we need to respect that though of course we can and should question what they say and delve into the context of writings, their timing, recipient etc etc. A novelist can do what she/he likes with the evidence, a scholar is more circumscribed. UNLESS we discover - as we have with MM and Ostrog - that the grounds for a view are apparently wrong. equally we can reasonably debate whether Kosminksi was correctly identified or was mixed up with someone else or others.

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 have only Caesar's record of his battle with the Nervii. We have no right to question that the battle took place, but we can ask questions of it - did caesar act as he says he did? Was he surprised and his account seeks to cover that up? Why was the account written? When? By Caesar or someone else?

We cannot ignore contemoporary suspects, we can interrogate the accounts we have and the reasoning so far as it exiosts now. But a suspect in NOT a theory, in my view. 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).

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. But simply stating that as a fact is not persuasive or persuading.

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.

Jonathan - I clearly struck a nerve as the tone of your response shows.

I can hardly be said to be in a bunker, since I am not defending anything. I do genuinely have an open mind. I have questioned all my assumptions about JtR in recent years - not least whether one hand only was responsible.

But the fact is that I am NOT CONVINCED by the arguments you advance, am frankly bored by the repetition of your case, and question the whole basis of your theory. So no, I no longer read threads on those issues - but that is a question of prioorities and deliberate choice, not of a closed mind. Sorry to disappoint you.

Phil

[Jonathan H]

Yeah, back to your bunker as the city burns around you.

Did you even read the excerpts-argument from Palmer ...?

About the police investigation of Jack the Ripper, eg. a 'very likely' suspect abroad.

Or, is it impertinent to ask such a question -- there are so many rules for us to remember.

[Fisherman]

One of the difficulties with some of the theories advanced here is that they are too sheerly intellectual, too circumstantial, with no actual evidence on which to base them.
Phil

But is that not something that applies to ALL theories advanced here, Phil? Is there any theory at all that is based on "actual" evidence? Are they not all - at best - based on circumstantial evidence? Or no evidence at all?

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. 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 may therefore conclude that hard, caserelated evidence was not present in most cases. Suspicions, namings, circumstantial evidence, yes - but thatīs it. Nothing more than that.

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; he was actually there at the Nichols murder spot, he actually gave a name that was not his real one, he is actually pointed out by a PC as having told him a story that was not true and that would have facilitated his passing that PC etcetera. And that, Phil is as good as the evidence gets in any case.
As for Kosminski, we donīt know how the caserelated evidence looked. Maybe it was something along the exact same lines - maybe he had been caught lying to the police to avoid detection. Thatīs just one possibility. We donīt know what it was that made Anderson suspect the man Swanson named Kosminski. Hardly a good case, thus.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

new discoveries and/or arguments, and/or interpretations are not accepted by many here

The onus is surely on those promoting new ideas/ theories etc to persuade and make their case.

If that is not done, why should others support those "new ideas".

I certainly engage in debate on a wide range of issues on Casebook, I am often unpopular when I challenge those ideas, Sobeit. I was trained as a civil servent to evaluate both sides of an issue - that is what I do.

As an historian, I lament it when factual material (the Swanson marginalia as an example) is questioned in regard to authenticity simply because it is inconvenient for someone's pet theory and on no good grounds. The same thing happened as I recall with the 1909 picture of Dutfield's Yard. people have their own axes to grind.

One of the difficulties with some of the theories advanced here is that they are too sheerly intellectual, too circumstantial, with no actual evidence on which to base them. Some of those may be amusing, some mildly interesting, but most can be dismissed from deeper study as clever but irrelevant and unconvincing. Simply regurgitating the same arguments (beyond a certain point) is, IMHO, counter-productive. In my case I simply switch off to those threads and don't read them.

Always though, the promoter of the idea has to do the convincing, whatever the merits of the particular "product" he or she is seeking to "sell".

Phil

[Phil H]

As someone who once had to do with freedom of Information business, I'm afraid civil servents simply don't look at websites like this and think it would be nice/safe to release material.

There are simply not the human resources to do that. Indeed, today's officials are unlikely to have any knowledge of the content of very old files, or its relevance, unless a request requires them to look into the material. Most officials would not know whether a file on X related to the Ripper case (for example) because it mentioned someone called Druitt or Tumblety. Why should they, their focus is today and FOI work is just one aspect of their duties. I cannot emphasise enough the sheer quantity of archived files that exist, most of which are utterly mundane and have not been looked at for years. No one could know what is in files closed long before they were born.

Files that are releasable are routinely sent to the National Archives where they are available to researchers and the public. For other stuff that may have been retained for some reason, it is a question of requesting the information - the onus is on those who believe it exists/want to see it.

Even then, the consideration given by officials will not take into account the reputability of the requester. The issues around non-release will be around precedent, sensitivity etc. I went through all this with trevor and others a while back.

If records, as an example, relate to Fenian-related informants, then the view might well be that release of names could well put at risk the descendents of those involved in 1888. I did not work for the Home Office though and I know nothing of the specific case, but those will be the sort of concerns.

I am actually of the belief that with a view of everything.. and I mean everything Ripper/Whitechapel murders related, we might just be able to understand many of the things we do not understand today.

But you would have to define EVERYTHING - does that mean that every surviving paper initialled as seen by or written by Anderson or Swanson would need to be released? Some references might only be comprehensible if seen in the context of another paper. Where does it end?

With all the cards on the table, we may actually be able to shuffle the deck and dismiss accordingly. Might...

But would we have "all the cards on the table"? At best we would have only the SURVIVING papers. Over the years files containing routine material will have been disposed of, and we know that the JtR files were pillaged for many years. So it would only ever be a partial selection and I suspect we have 99.9% now.

Like all history, it has to be allowed to develop. To breath. It can only stagnate without input.

It is for researchers to provide that input as they do for all historical periods and issues.

I share your aspirations, but in my hard-nosed way, I wonder whether they are practical.

Come back if anything I have said fails to make sense to you.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil H,

Even if the authorities released any retained information relating to the Ripper case - not sure how you define that to be comprehensive - I doubt that it would solve anything. More likely it would create new questions. Rather as the Swanson marginalia has.

In the 60s/early 70s when I first started to read in the subject, the unspoken assumption was that once the files were opened (100 year rule then so in 1988/1992 period) there would be a name. The police would have suspected someone.

When Roy Jenkins opened the files earlier, what did we find - the macnaghten memo, with at least one potential suspect NOW shown to be unlikely/impossible. NO SOLUTIONS. I suspect that the same would be true of any of the retained files (assuming they exist). Ripper content could be tangential, incomplete - begging more questions, or spurious.

It would be nice to have it, but I doubt it would be conclusive.

Yes, I agree, but I wasn't actually thinking that an answer would lie there. I am actually of the belief that with a view of everything.. and I mean everything Ripper/Whitechapel murders related, we might just be able to understand many of the things we do not understand today. With all the cards on the table, we may actually be able to shuffle the deck and dismiss accordingly. Might...

I, like you, started this in the late 60's. After such a long time, it is now 125 years since 1888, and 40 years or so since Home Secretary Jenkins' decision. I hope against hope that someone looking at these websites realises that the interest in the genre isn't just a game of "hunt the Ripper".

Like all history, it has to be allowed to develop. To breath. It can only stagnate without input. Yes, like you, I believe we are coming to the end of the line. Regurgitation and tiny add-ons of old suspect theories are now becoming like a watered down beer. In some cases, the beer is even starting to smell.



Phil

[Jonathan H]

No, Phil

Phil H

That's not really applicable because new discoveries and/or arguments, and/or interpretations are not accepted by many here.

You yourself flatly refused to answer the question whether Sims' semi-fictional profile of Druitt -- which hid Montie and his family -- was created by happy accident or sly design.

Of course you have the right not to answer a question. And I support your right not to be be free from interrogative harassment. I am not a cop and you are not under arrest.

It's just that it also proves my point about some older questors sealing themselves off in their Fuhrer-bunkers as the Russian guns get louder -- eg. refusing to face anything that they themselves had never noticed before.

Let me give you another very telling example:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=259140#post259140

[Phil H]

if you persist, and do not back down from the passive-aggressive treatment, then they claim they had noticed it, all along, but it wasn't worth noticing in the first place.

The three stages by which a new theory becomes a conventional wisdom are usually expressed as:

a) At the outset: what a crazy theory no one would believe that;

b) Then after a while: I always thought that anyway;

c) Finally when it has become widely accepted: no one ever thought differently!

Of course some crazy theories remain just that for ever.

phil

[RivkahChaya]

Cornwell actually made a forensic case for Sickert as a letter writer. She matched a watermark on the paper used to write one of the letters to paper he had used to write known letters, and there was something unusual about it-- it was no longer being sold at the time the JTR letter was sent, or something. She also tried to get DNA from the stamp. I don't remember the conclusion there either, except that she was only partially successful, but did not eliminate Sickert. I don't remember if the stamp sample was to degraded for a usable profile, or if her "Sickert" sample had poor provenance, but the totality of evidence was enough that Scotland Yard probably could have gotten a guilty plea to fraud, or interfering with an investigation, or something. Good for a fine.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again,

Simon Wood once said that he believed the study of these crimes has become a thousand times more convoluted in the 125 years people like us have been batting around the issues, and I agree completely.

Taken from contemporary notes and observations it is clear that in the Fall of 1888 they had no suspects. Or they had many...depends on your point of view really. But no-one had anything linking them with any murder, based on their investigations at the time. In later months were are provided with what amounts to be a ludicrous list of "3 Suspects", none with any evidence linking them to any of the crimes, and one who was incarcerated at the time of the murders.

There are no real suspects today, though there are lots of names tossed onto the pile without any of that nagging evidence linking them to at least one Canonical death.

My bet is, thread wise, that Sickert wrote a letter or 2. Its not been proven, but based on his art and his personality, I can see him having some fun with this dark period in London. Lots of people did apparently. Doesnt make any one of them a Ripper though.

Best regards

[RivkahChaya]

BTW, what does "rape kit" mean in the UK? In the US, it's a box of sterile supplies that hospitals keep on hand for collecting evidence from rape victims. It has a bunch of swabs, a comb, nail clippers, and a couple of sets of tweezers, all in sterile wrappers (like Band-Aids), and containers to deposit them into, with sealing tape that the nurse initials to establish a chain of evidence. It's got a blood vial for an HIV baseline test, a cup for a urine test, and maybe a pregnancy test, to make sure the woman isn't already pregnant, before offering her the Plan-B pill. It may also have a camera in it, or the hospital may use a digital camera now. At one time, Polaroids were taken, because they couldn't be digitally manipulated, but I don't know if that's still true. I was an interpreter on call for a couple of hospitals for several years, so I was shown a rape kit taken on a dummy, in order not to be surprised by anything that happened.

Apparently, the collected evidence is also referred to as the "rape kit" by police and lawyers. Collecting the evidence is "doing" a rape kit.

The boxes are portable. I have no idea what kind of "portable rape kit" Sickert is supposed to have invented, although, FWIW, Cornwell thinks he was impotent as the result of some kind of penile surgery he had as a child, and part of her case for Sickert is the fact that none of the canonicals were raped. She includes Tabram among the victims, and I think her reasoning is at least in part that Tabram was not raped.

[Roy Corduroy]

Cynicism and a belief that authority and the police are discredited, corrupt or manipulative.

Like a sit-in from the 1960's. You know, where everybody is wearing love beads. And no one's had a bath in a week.

Roy

[Fisherman]

To Fisherman

When anybody new notices something new (eg. something they have not noticed) the reaction is one of indignation and condescension. How dare it be suggested that they could have missed something (usually something obvious).

Then if you persist, and do not back down from the passive-aggressive treatment, then they claim they had noticed it, all along, but it wasn't worth noticing in the first place.

All VERY true, Jonathan. And in spite of it being totally obvious that Lechmere has more going for him in terms of caserelated circumstantial evidence than any other named suspect, this is something that none of these gentlemen will say out loud.

Maybe it is physically impossible for them to do so.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Graham]

To Fisherman

When anybody new notices something new (eg. something they have not noticed) the reaction is one of indignation and condescension. How dare it be suggested that they could have missed something (usually something obvious).

Then if you persist, and do not back down from the passive-aggressive treatment, then they claim they had noticed it, all along, but it wasn't worth noticing in the first place.

Although what you say has indeed occurred on these boards over the years, I don't think anyone ever anticipated that Van Gogh would ever be picked as a suspect. Sickert yes, his candidacy goes back a long time. Until the 'Diary' was published, no-one but no-one had ever linked the name of James Maybrick with the Ripper murders and I can't recall anyone ever claiming to have done. The most usual reaction to a 'suspect' such as Van Gogh is ridicule which is, I believe, justified in this case.

Graham

[Abby Normal]

I would put Lechmere in a total different class of suspect viability than candidates like Sickert and Van Gogh,( or for that matter maybrick or the royal conspiracy or lewis carrol), and those are not just "modern" constructs.