Ripperologist 133: August 2013

[RavenDarkendale]

Articles based largely on personal opinion, interpretation, supposition, and speculation always do leave many questions.

Personal opinion of law enforcement personnel, interpretation of given evidence, supposition as to the character of the criminal or the crime, and speculation by weighing the evidence to see where it might take the investigation has solved every crime that has ever been solved.

When a murder is committed, the evidence is sometimes cloudy, but the police have to start somewhere. This is where personal opinion comes in. Going on gut feeling the police target a likely suspect.

They then must interpret the maze of trace evidence, crime scene photos, known whereabouts of people involved, and any alibis given. If the evidence does not point to their gut feeling suspect, they must then move on.

Without supposition there would be no profiling. Getting inside the head of the perp requires visualizing and fitting together facts to approximate the killer's identity. This is nothing if it is not supposition. It is a guide line not a blueprint. It gives a general pattern to work from, not a blueprint which will produce one and only one criminal.

Speculation is a must for crime investigation. Ex. There was a body found in Miller's Court destroyed beyond identifying by the forensics of the day. It would have been insane of any investigator if they did not speculate that the body was Mary Kelly. Her room, her bed, some of her clothes in the room, hair color approximately correct. The fact that witnesses reported seeing Mary alive after that body was dead would then cause speculation that it wasn't Mary after all. This would lead to the discovery that she allowed other women to share her room.

This doesn't rule out Mary as the body, the facts would make one believe it was she. The eyewitness statements if taken as not mistaken as to time or person produce facts that allow the ID to be questioned.

Every fact may be passed through personal opinion, but personal opinion must not twist facts. Interpretation of evidence must be careful to not stray into fantasy. Blood spatter for example, follows certain patterns. It is when the patterns are either ignored or misinterpreted that they become useless. When personal opinion and interpretation ignore facts that do not conform, personal opinion and interpretation need to change.

Supposition may be given as long as facts are not ignored. It is building fact to fact, filling in missing data with the most logical pathway. Just don't draw a circle from point a to point b. A straight line is the answer. Speculation is a conclusion drawn from fact. If it doesn't match fact, speculation goes out the window. A profile that ignores fact will find only wrong suspects.

So every conclusion comes from the things you mention. If the four miss the facts, then they are wrong. If they fit, they can send the guilty to justice.

God Bless

Darkendale

[The Good Michael]

Supposition may be given as long as facts are not ignored. It is building fact to fact, filling in missing data with the most logical pathway. Just don't draw a circle from point a to point b. A straight line is the answer. Speculation is a conclusion drawn from fact. If it doesn't match fact, speculation goes out the window. A profile that ignores fact will find only wrong suspects.

Straight lines don't satisfy suspectologists in this case. In fact, logic always takes a crooked path in ripperology, and the only circles are those that bring us back to the beginning where the holes are because we don't have all the files. The simplest paths are ignored by those who favor suspects...always ignored.

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

I thought...

I thought that I made a comment about articles - not a police investigation. Whatever did I do for nearly thirty years (1969-1997) as a police officer working at the 'sharp end'?

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning Lynn,

But one thing is certain, H-H did NOT have broad shoulders. (heh-heh)

No but Colonel Hughes-Hallet did have a rather long neck and hollow cheek bones. Like the man Joseph Taylor followed from Mrs. Fiddymont's pub the morning of the Annie Chapman murder. The murder Simon wrote about.

[lynn cates]

almost there

Hello Roy. Thanks.

Now, if we can get the crazy eyes, peculiar gait and torn checked shirt, we've a new suspect.

Cheers.
LC

[Scott Nelson]

H-H may have been theatrical, but I just don't think an MP would have been into slumming the East End -- at least not that much. But I would agree that he visited George Yard after the Tabram murder.

[mklhawley]

From Joe

This message is from Joe Chetcuti: "In regards to Simon's article, the next course of action should be to locate Edward Stanley's military record. That type of paperwork should be accessible to the public. It will help us determine if the man actually existed, and if he did, we may learn of where he was officially stationed during the time of the Tabram and Nichols murders."

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike and Joe,

If the witness Edward Stanley did exist then we know where he was at the time of the Tabram and Nichols murders—

"The brigade assembled for twenty-seven days’ training on August 6 at Fort Elson, Gosport . . . On September 1st 1888 the men were dismissed to their homes."

Now that's what I call an iron-clad alibi.

If you ever do manage to locate an Edward Stanley who can be proven to fit the witness profile in all respects, I will happily concede that the premise of my article is fanciful doggy-doo.

But until such time . . .

Regards,

Simon

[DVV]

Oh, poor me...
I just had the time to read Gareth edito, then I've cleaned up my mail and... farewell Ripp 133 !

[lynn cates]

kudos

Hello All. Kudos to Mike Hawley on Tumblety.

Hope to see more about Tumblety and his link to Clan-na-Gael.

Cheers.
LC

[mklhawley]

Hello All. Kudos to Mike Hawley on Tumblety.

Hope to see more about Tumblety and his link to Clan-na-Gael.

Cheers.
LC

Thanks Lynn,

There's certainly a story in there, as well.

Sincerely,
Mike

[mklhawley]

This is from Joe Chetcuti: Hello Simon. Thanks for responding. Help me out here. In your last post you claimed that Fort Elson, Gosport was the place Edward Stanley would have been stationed from Aug 6 to Sept 1st, if the man really existed. You called it his iron-clad alibi.

Then on page 41 of the current Rippeorlogist issue you wrote, "How could Edward Stanley have provided Coroner Wynne Baxter with such accurate dates (6 August - 1 September) regarding his time at Gosport, thus alluding to a militia brigade to which he could not have belonged."

So Edward Stanley's iron-clad alibi is place in which he could not have belonged to? I'm stumped right now.

Maybe we ought to simply take a look at the 1888 military records to see if man by the name of Edward Stanley is listed in there, and if he is listed, maybe we can find out where he was stationed in August and September 1888. Thanks Simon. This is my last post on this thread.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike and Joe,

Had an Edward Stanley actually existed and been a volunteer with the 2nd Brigade, Southern Division, Royal Artillery at Fort Elson, he would have had a cast-iron alibi for the dates 6th August to 1st September.

He would also have been a resident of Hampshire.

But as I detailed in my article, the "Edward Stanley" who appeared at Chapman's inquest was a resident of London and therefore ineligible to volunteer with a Hampshire militia.

My offer still stands. Find me an Edward Stanley, aged 47, serving with the 2nd Brigade, Southern Division, Royal Artillery at Fort Elson between 6th August and 1st September 1888 and I will concede that my article is a pile of fanciful doggy-doos.

The burden of proof remains with you.

Regards,

Simon

[RavenDarkendale]

I thought that I made a comment about articles - not a police investigation. Whatever did I do for nearly thirty years (1969-1997) as a police officer working at the 'sharp end'?

Dear Mr. Evans:

I certainly beg your pardon, as an ex-policeman you were fully aware of the points I made. I wasn't aware you were ex-law enforcement.

The articles are written by people who may have personal opinions formed on what they know of the facts. When a newly discovered fact trumps that personal opinion, that is where people run into trouble, since no one likes to be proven wrong.

The articles are written by people who are certainly free to interpret what they know of the evidence in whatever manner they choose. It is when facts prove this interpretation to be moonshine that people stubbornly cling to their selected suspect and scream "Foul!"

Supposition must play into any written document postulating a new suspect, and even in the books chronicling the crimes. For example, did JtR kill 5, 8+, or only four victims? If you decide on a number, which ones were his victims and which were killed by someone else? Did "the double event" take place or were there two criminals and two crimes? And so on.

And in writing books, articles, and even comments on this thread we are all speculating on JtR's identity. No doubt some on the list can be eliminated by emerging facts but among the ones that will be left standing, they can't all be guilty.

And the real Whitechapel Woman Whacker may be someone never on any list at all.

God Bless you

Darkendale

[robhouse]

The burden of proof remains with you.

Classic.