Did Jack only kill 3?

[Bridewell]

Suspects & the Burden of Proof

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.

Hi Michael,

It's one thing to say that the requirement for evidence shouldn't be lessened, but another matter entirely to argue that it should be increased 124 years after the event. I can't speak for others but, for my own part, it's your insistence on 'absolute proof', i.e. a level higher than that required by the criminal courts that I find perplexing. Have I misunderstood your position on this? Are you saying that 'absolute proof' is required to name someone as a suspect, or that it is required to name an individual as being 'Jack the Ripper'?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

That depends on who you ask, Michael. If you asked Sir Henry Smith, then he'd consider Le Grand a great suspect, because as far as Smith was concerned, he COULD be linked to one of the murder. If you asked Anderson about Le Grand, you'd get a different answer, because both interpret the evidence differently, or are in possession of different information.

You're not the only one who, for whatever reason, is pissed that I am researching and publishing on Le Grand. Howard Brown thinks it's a harmful exercise (not sure why since it will likely attract new people to the case, and therefore his forum), and of course the writers of other suspect books would prefer I not enter into their fray. You for some reason do not want a search for Jack the Ripper, but instead want to talk endlessly about who killed Stride. Yet when anyone puts forth a suggestion, you become irate and shoot it and them down. You have an agenda that's beyond understanding or definition.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

por que?

Hello Mike, Tom. Given that Isenschmid did kill Polly and Annie, is there any a priori reason why LeGrand could NOT have killed at least one of the other three? He did boast that he had killed one woman, according to Debs and Tom's research.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

He did boast that he had killed one woman

Not specifically "a woman", Lynn. (Such would have been a statement too close to a confession to make anyway.)

[Bridewell]

Given that Isenschmid did kill Polly and Annie

Hi Lynn,

Does anyone other that your good self see this as a 'given'?

Regards, Bridewell.

[DVV]

...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.

Mike R

Hi Mike

what about Hutch ? (whose real name was...)

[Supe]

You see, Michael, as the above comments by your peers show, it is a game everyone can play -- and it is a history game with vastly different rules than apply in a criminal investigation. Does it bother you that some say Lizzie Borden killed her parents? Does it bother you that many historians argue that Richard III killed the "Princes in the Tower"? Or is it just the naming of names in the Whitechapel Murders that bothers you?

In any case, if you are truly so morally squeamish as to be offended by historians suggesting (and they can do more than that) with varying degrees of certitude that one historical figure killed another then do find another hobby horse.

Don.

[DVV]

That's right, Supe. The only game I dislike is choosing an obvious but glamour innocent to make money (Cornwell, Herfort and so many).

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

Clearly. Kosminski aside, we are not aware of anyone having been lifted for the crimes, which certainly does leave open the possibility of more than one murderer. Hardly an earth-shattering conclusion.

I read that Liz Strides murder was interrupted.

Which is far from an outlandish theory all things considered.

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.

Is this the only nugget of information utilised by Druitt advocates?

Mike, whenever I read your posts you leave me with the impression that you believe that you alone, or perhaps alongside a few other like minded souls, are plumbing the depths of earthly wisdom with regard to JTR. You're not, Mike, you just think you are.

[lynn cates]

quote

Hello Maria. Thanks.

Do you have the exact quote at hand?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

given

Hello Colin. Thanks. I would not exactly call it a given myself. Others? Very few.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hello folks,

In response.....

Bridewell, Absolute proof in my use of the phrase refers to hard, qualifiable, physical evidence that without doubt links any one person to any one of the Canonical murders. My perception is that there is no such evidence that is known and available.

Tom, I dont resent your position on LeGrand at all. If you happen to feel that he is a good suspect for any one of the Canonical Murders then by all means, pursue that avenue. To suggest that any person was likely Jack the Ripper, if in fact a hard link to just a single Canonical murder can be found, insinuates that there was indeed factually a single man we can legitimately call Jack the Ripper. That has never been proven, not by a long stretch.

Lynn, I see no reason why LeGrand couldnt have killed anyone, he seems a suitable candidate for violent crime. All Im saying is before he can be called a murderer, let alone a murderer of the 5 Canonicals, proof must be provided.

David, George Hutchinson is a witness. A witness who in short time was not believed. That doesnt make him a suspect for anything but Perjury, Mischief or Fraud. Since we only know that someone was seen watching the court we can only say that person would be of interest in the case, not that it was George Hutchinson nor that the person was a partner with anyone in any crime. Only George Hutchinson says George Hutchinson was there, as in Israels case.

Don, not being terribly conversant on the Borden case or Richard the 3rd, I can only say that unless a "smoking gun" connected the individuals to the crimes they shouldnt be named as guilty parties. From the Borden case the defense council AV Jennings summed by saying.... "There is not one particle of direct evidence in this case from beginning to end against Lizzie A. Borden. There is not a spot of blood, there is not a weapon that they have connected with her in any way, shape or fashion." He was right, and she was found Not Guilty. When the judge charged the jury to make a decision he did so pointing out the folly of depending upon circumstantial evidence alone.

All Im suggesting is the same principle that he espoused be used in the analysis of these particular murders.

Fleetwood, as you correctly state there is nothing wrong with theorizing Liz Strides murder was interrupted, there is with stating it as fact. However, I challenge you or anyone to find one piece of physical evidence from that murder and murder scene that indicates the killer intended to do anything more to Liz Stride after cutting her once. To address your final comment, I can only say that for many years here almost all the long time students of the crimes have stood by the Canonical Group dogma without benefit of any evidence to support it, hard physical evidence linking individual with crime. I do know that some here are looking at the cases in a similar fashion to myself and do not accept a Canonical Group as a given.

It would be nice if they chimed in a little more and shared the criticisms that come with the posting of such blasphemies, but its really about what my conscience says to me here, not what support the ideas get from the general population. I state my own opinion, it differs from many others, that in of itself doesnt make either party incorrect. The jury is still out amigos.

Best regards,

Mike R

[lynn cates]

C L G

Hello Mike. Thanks. Perhaps we could emend that from "proof" to "evidence"?

But I agree that CLG, given his character, makes an ideal thug.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra A]

Hello Maria. Thanks.

Do you have the exact quote at hand?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
This is the exact quote in context-
From the PMG Nov 26th 1891 (just after conviction)

"He used to practice as a 'private inquiry agent' off and on, and the terror which he inspired among the more helpless class of his victims was due as much to the show he made of being 'in with the police' (en mouchard) as to his probably absurd boast of having a murder in his past."

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"I agree that CLG, given his character, makes an ideal thug."

He does. But did Bundy, Ridgway, Rifkin, Shawcross, Brudos, Sutcliffe and the likes of them make ideal thugs too...?

All the best,
Fisherman