Did Jack only kill 3?

[Tom_Wescott]

Project Turdburger

Without dragging out this out further Tom, I personally feel that anyone who names a suspect, or in his or her own mind goes about clearing a suspect, is being irresponsible. Unless of course accompanying that accusation absolute proof is provided.

I named Le Grand as a Ripper suspect. Shortly thereafter, Mike Covell, Mark Ripper, Debra Arif, and myself all found ABSOLUTE PROOF that he was indeed a police Ripper suspect. Happy now? That's my track record, Kramer. What's yours? Oh yeah, getting banned. Keep that up.

I meant that...keep it up.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridewell]

Absolute Proof

Without dragging out this out further Tom, I personally feel that anyone who names a suspect, or in his or her own mind goes about clearing a suspect, is being irresponsible. Unless of course accompanying that accusation absolute proof is provided.

So any article or full blown thesis naming anyone as the murderer of the Canonical Group or any member of it, or clearing any suspect of complicity in any of the murders, without also publishing that absolute proof, isnt really publishing anything new or revelatory. In fact you are just slandering the dead by use of their name in conjunction with the Ripper crimes.

Thats the simple reason I dont, and never have, chosen or named anyone as a suspect in these crimes. I have said that I can see the logic in others choices, like Lynn Cates and his review of Isenschmid as a potential C1 and C2 killer.

The relationship link that you say you have discovered Maria, if provable, opens up discussions on how that relationship affected what Israel Schwartz stated to the police. It does not exonerate Israel or anyone at the club nor does it damn Israel or anyone at the club...it only allows for a more discerning and critical look at what he said happened.

Best regards,

Mike R

Hi Mike,

Absolute Proof? Don't you think that's setting the bar rather high when even the criminal law requires only proof beyond reasonable doubt? By that yardstick even someone against whom sufficient evidence had been found to convict would be acquitted on the back of a miniscule level of doubt.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Bride. Since I have not published that Le Grand was Jack the Ripper, but instead that he was a Ripper suspect, I trust that I have provided proof for that which is sufficient for most reasonable Ripperologists. Mike is not reasonable. You see him passing moral judgement on me while he blames a handful of innocent young men for Stride's murder, which I don't personally find fault with, since it's a possible theory. But this taking the moral high ground and pointing fingers seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

3 is too much. He killed 2 and half, I think.

[Cogidubnus]

Difficulties

Oh god I'm in a scenario where Tom Wescott is humble...f**k...

Dave

[DVV]

Capital

I have much respect for Tom, but how can you write "god" (là, je me signe) and "Tom Wescott" ?

[lynn cates]

cross

Hello David. Hope you are well.

When you said "là, je me signe" did you mean Lechmere? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

I have much respect for Tom, but how can you write "god" (là, je me signe) and "Tom Wescott" ?

I was about to say "yeah but not in the same sentence", and then I twigged...oh.shut.

Dave

[mariab]

To Dave:
This constitutes double blasphemy, which should ensue in double indemnity.

David, would you rather have it as "God and tom wescott"? (As in Goliath and david, lol.)
While you were absent, someone has attempted to take Lechmere away from you, and I don't mean the poster. Hint:

Quote Bridewell:
Absolute Proof? Don't you think that's setting the bar rather high when even the criminal law requires only proof beyond reasonable doubt?
We have a winner in the debate.

[Cogidubnus]

Vive la difference

God and Tom Wescott?

The difference actually is that God doesn't think he's Tom Wescott...

All the best

Dave

[mariab]

Dave,
like a dog with his bone. I think you should cut it off.

[Cogidubnus]

cut it off

Sorry Maria, but I'm afraid I don't quite get the reference...spell it out please to a thicko....cheers

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

It would seem that some have forgotten that Reasonable Doubt has very little applicable value when attempting to close unsolved cases that are over 120 years old. Unless you can connect the person physically to these crimes names should not be attached as "Suspects". Naming someone with a known bad disposition, someone who committed other crimes similar in nature or someone the police named as a likely suspect isnt of any value today...since its clear not one suspect named in the history of this study has ever been linked by any physical evidence to even one Canonical death.

I mention that because I assume that some who study these cases do so in order to gain understanding of what happened during that Fall, and some are eager to try and solve all of the cases with a single name. Im a student of the first variety.

Ive always been surprised at the ease with which people suggest various names as the Ripper, considering the absence of any Hard Evidence or Proof thats submitted in support. Clearly there were bad men living at that time, in and around the specific area, and with the necessary cruelty and absence of conscience that kills like these required. That alone doesnt make any of them suspects in the murders of the Five Canonicals.

Best regards

Mike R

[Supe]

Michael,

I am not being dismissive or flippant, but why do you bother to participate on the boards? The Whitechapel murders have long ago passed from being a police problem to that of historic conundrum, something with which you are clearly uncomfortable. That is your decision, but if you don't like the game, don't play or watch -- simple as that.

Historical investigations must, by definition, use different rules than police investigations and the rules of evidence are less rigorous and allow for informed inference and sheer speculation. And, were historians not allowed, at times, to "name names" and otherwise implicate people in all manner of dastardly acts there would be no profession of history, but only chronicles by establishment hacks and flacks.

As far as the practice of accusing historical figures is concerned, it may be a moral hurdle for some but it is not a legal problem: one cannot libel/slander the dead. If you don't like that then put aside history as a hobby and try stamp collecting.

Don.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael,

I am not being dismissive or flippant, but why do you bother to participate on the boards? The Whitechapel murders have long ago passed from being a police problem to that of historic conundrum, something with which you are clearly uncomfortable. That is your decision, but if you don't like the game, don't play or watch -- simple as that.

Historical investigations must, by definition, use different rules than police investigations and the rules of evidence are less rigorous and allow for informed inference and sheer speculation. And, were historians not allowed, at times, to "name names" and otherwise implicate people in all manner of dastardly acts there would be no profession of history, but only chronicles by establishment hacks and flacks.

As far as the practice of accusing historical figures is concerned, it may be a moral hurdle for some but it is not a legal problem: one cannot libel/slander the dead. If you don't like that then put aside history as a hobby and try stamp collecting.

Don.

Its a fair question Don, and one you worded specifically so I wouldnt interpret your remarks as an attack. So Ill answer you.

Legality aside, I resent the naming of suspects in the same way I resent Bingham claiming he found Vilcabamba when he found Machu Picchu, there is a burden of proof that is required when making statements in the absolute.

I agree we have a historical conundrum but I do not agree that because of time elapsed the requirement for evidence or proof of a very serious accusation or allegation has lessened.

My reason for participating here is that I believe there is a great need in Ripperology today to sort out what can be stated with authority based on the known existing data alone and what has become accepted as fact without any accompanying corroborating data.

The reason we get Suspect based articles and books is because many students believe all that is missing is a name for the killer. The actual truth is that the Canonical Group itself is an unproven guesstimate of a single killers murder series, and the totality of the Whitechapel murder file concerns individual unsolved murders.

My hope is that students new to the study will read all the posts here and decide what course of action they would choose to take to try and resolve this conundrum, and that includes perspectives that are unwilling to assume a Canonical Group or any suspects guilt or innocence until such time as evidence is provided.

When I first joined way back in 2005-2006 I read that Jacob Isenschmid could not be Jack the Ripper because he was incarcerated for 3 of the 5 Canonical murders. I read that Chapman is likely to have killed the 5 women because he lived there and later poisoned women. I read that Liz Strides murder was interrupted. I read that a barrister who committed suicide at the end of the 5 murders is likely the killer because its alleged his family believed him to be.

None of those things are empirical, and some are downright illogical.

If for example JI was identified by a witness, had the skills needed and the psychological disposition to perform the acts, then the fact he is incarcerated after the Chapman murder means only that he could have only killed the first 2 Canonicals... if anyone. It doesnt mean Polly and Annie were killed by someone else who was also free to kill the remaining 3 women.

Maybe some Ripperologists would prefer for that type of thinking to go away so they can return to the days when all that was needed was the correct killers name to end the mystery.

Maybe a different perspective can avoid some of that. Ive personally read my last Ripper book that names a particular person as Jack the Ripper, maybe others want more than guesswork too.

My regards Don,

Mike R