Author: Jake Lake
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 07:16 pm |        |
I am doing a school presentation, and I have to prove Jack the Ripper is innocent, wether I believe it or not, I have to prove it. I have all the research that does prove he did do it on your site. I am trying to find specific things that don't quite fit, that don't prove absolute innocence...
Anyways, if there is anything you might be able to help at all, I would like anything you could give me... If there is nothing, then that's fine, I don't blame you, I believe he's guilty. |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 07:28 pm | |
| Dear Jake; it seems to me that it would be difficult to prove somone innocent when you don't know who he or she is.Some on this Board believe that the women were all killed by different people. Somehave this suspect and some that.About all you can say is what the coroner's juries said-by person or persons unknown.The ladies are dead and someone killed them.Good Luck on your project. |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 07:30 pm | |
Uh...does your teacher know that Jack isn't a known person? As I said earlier on another board, how do you disprove an unknown?
Edit** DAvid I wasn't plagiarizing you ..our posts crossed! |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 07:44 pm | |
| Ally;Good you chimed in.What do they say about 'great minds'? I'm glad I said something that another agrees with. Rare on this Casebook. |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 07:47 pm | |
| LOL....ain't that the truth! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 12:53 am | |
G'day Jake,
First you must pick someone (yourself?) to be captured by police, be accused by everyone (the hungry press, Victorian people including prostitutes yelling "hang 'im", "torture 'im" etc in Cockney accents), then stand trial!
Study this site, study the pictures, fashions etc. Can anyone give Jake a good description of a Victorian courtroom?
You'll have to give yourself a good alibi and prove it! Like: "I was playing whist till half past twelve then I went to bed."
LEANNE |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 02:07 am | |
G'day Jake,
Here's two characters that you could use at your trial:
JUDGE: - Justice James Fitsjames Stephen K.C.S.I.
REPRESENTING THE POLICE: - Inspector Abberline of the Criminal Investigations Department, who opens with the words: "May it please your lordship - gentlemen of the jury, it is my duty in conjunction with my learned friends to lay before you evidence in support...."
LEANNE |
Author: Jake Lake
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 04:58 pm | |
david rhea: exactly, that's the main problem.
Ally: My teacher does know he hasn't been found, but that didn't stop him from assigning him to me 
Leanne Perry: this is a one-man project, I wouldn't be able to do all that with my self -- well. But it's a very interesting idea.
Thanks for everyones great help. I wasn't expecting so many replies so quickly. I went forth and wrote it already, since it was due tomorow (friday), and now it's changed to monday. I have extra time to fix it all up and stuff. But here is what I have, note, I am a Canadian, and things might be incorrect, I would like an opinion
_"Beta"_ Speech:
I am here to talk about the innocence of “Jack the Ripper,” who has been accused of
murdering at least 5 women in England. In order to prove someone guilty, in Canada, the proof has
to be beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, there are plenty of doubts.
[Show Victims]
There are several suspects. The suspects have similarities, but aren’t exactly close; there
is some doubt in every single one of their descriptions. Some witnesses supposedly saw him as
very old and well-dressed, while others saw him as young, tall and badly dressed.
Another doubt is that Jack the Ripper supposedly sent tons of letters to the police. How
does anyone know if Jack himself wrote them all, or if any of these letters were written by him?
Most of these letters don’t have very similar writing styles and don’t have very similar hand
writing.
[Show Letter - Dear Boss (Page 1)]
It has been 114 years since this crime has occurred. In Canada, you cannot be convicted if
you are deceased. You are assumed innocent until you are proven guilty. Since he is now
assumed deceased, he can no longer be convicted, and therefore, can no longer be proven guilty,
thus he is innocent. |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 05:07 pm | |
Oh it was one of those if a plane crashes where do you bury the survivors things.  I hate those. Actually I love them. Let's set up a lateral thinking puzzle board. I'll start it. Here you go...
If he'd seen the sawdust, he wouldn't have died.
Go. |
Author: Jake Lake
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 05:20 pm | |
| Uhmm, I don't follow? |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 05:25 pm | |
LOL..basically it is a sideways thinking game. You proved him innocent, not on any merits of the case but by applying sideways logic. Now whether he was REALLY innocent or not...but was he innocent by law because he couldn't be brought to trial. Lateral thinking. There is a game where you are given a scenario and you have to figure out the circumstances by asking only yes or no questions. They are called lateral thinking puzzles. So..
If he'd seen the sawdust he woudn't have died.
|
Author: Jake Lake
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 05:37 pm | |
| I see... well, it's all I could really come up with. He's dead, no one ever caught him, and I have to prove him innocent, I did it all, even by proving him "not guilty", instead of "innocent" |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 05:41 pm | |
I'd give you an A.
Ally |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 05:45 pm | |
G'day Jake,
That's it mate: 'Innocent until proven guilty' and no one has been proven guilty yet!
Why don't you show some of the many suspect photos, or if you have a printer, print out the small photos of suspects on the one page, that appears on the main 'Casebook' here.
If you haven't got a printer, can you borrow a book from the library?
LEANNE |
Author: Jake Lake
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 07:01 pm | |
I am already showing the victims, showing the suspects wouldn't work with my speech because it's acting like we know who he is but he's dead, even though we don't know who he is.
I mean, how can I prove someone is innocent if the "someone" is a list of suspects, that's why I acted like there is only one suspect, to make things simpler.
And thanks everyone for support and ideas. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 05:21 am | |
Dear Jake,
An interesting thought but marred slightly by your misunderstanding of the law. There is no such verdict as "Innocent". The only two verdicts under English Law are Guilty or Not Guilty (Scottish law also has Not Proven)
I have never come across a phrase or saying that is so often misquoted as "you are innocent until proven guilty". The concept is "You are PRESUMED to be innocent until you are proven guilty" which as you will appreciate is an entirely different thing.
Therefore your statement above:
"therefore, can no longer be proven guilty,
thus he is innocent."
is fundamentally wrong. Just because you cannot prove guilt does not make the accused innocent. And if the accused cannot be brought to trial, through being dead for instance, he cannot even be adjudged 'Not Guilty'.
This has particular meaning for people in Britain as they have seen many convicted murderers and terrorists released after having their sentences quashed and have to endure them shouting about how they have been "Proved Innocent" Nothing of the sort.
The person commonly known as Jack the Ripper is guilty of murder. Which doesn't really get us anywhere as it is the same as saying the person who committed the murders is a murderer. One thing he isn't is innocent!
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Jake Lake
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 04:30 pm | |
I said I was Canadian. There is the verdict "innocent" in Canada. And so does the quote "you are innocent until proven guilty". We're doing Law in Civics class, and we are just talking about that quote.
Either the books are wrong, or you are wrong; assuming that I have misunderstood without proving, is wrong it self. |
Author: david rhea
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 06:29 pm | |
| Jake;If you have a person perhaps that is true, but an X.A murderer who is an X is a murderer until you have something more to go on.Murderers are always guilty because they murdered.Now when you have a definite person you can make other determinations as to did he do it or not.Jack The Ripper is a vey definite X.Stay in there.When you read the entrance to pub talk it says to grab a pint and let your hair down.After you are in awhile you know that you must protect your hair(There are Apaches and headhunters abroad on this casebook).Keep a sharp eye out. |
Author: Jake Lake
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 09:25 pm | |
I understand that, but this was the best I could personnally do.
What do you mean by
"When you read the entrance to pub talk it says to grab a pint and let your hair down.After you are in awhile you know that you must protect your hair(There are Apaches and headhunters abroad on this casebook).Keep a sharp eye out. " |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 10:09 pm | |
Jake,
Don't mind the Apaches and headhunters here. They are really just so many chocolate poofs. I regularly have them for breakfast myself.
David |
Author: Ally
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 11:26 am | |
| Jake..don't worry about the argument. Seeing as how this an impossible assignment based on the fact that you have to prove an unknown to be innocent, I think you have solved it perfectly. |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 01:23 pm | |
My apologies--I should have said pooves.
David |
Author: david rhea
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 01:31 pm | |
| Enjoy your breakfast down with the crew under James Maybrick and time for re-valuation. |
Author: Jake Lake
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 09:16 pm | |
Thanks everyone for their help, their comments and their complements as well. This is probably the last time you will see me here, so I'd like to say good bye to everyone and have a good one!
Sincerly,
Mike.
PS - FYI: Yes, Mike, not Jake Lake. Jake Lake is a fictional name. It is a name I use for registerring things. Like Jack the Ripper. |
Author: david rhea
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 10:16 pm | |
| Mike/Jake:Enjoyed corresponding with you.AS to the alias, you should feel right at home in this case. |
Author: david rhea
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 10:47 pm | |
| Where are you Ally? |
Author: Ally
Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 08:40 am | |
Eastern United States. You?
Ally |
Author: david rhea
Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 09:29 am | |
| Southern United States. |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Saturday, 16 February 2002 - 02:46 pm | |
Mike: It sounds like it was a fun but frustrating assignment. Here in the states it can vary but I believe that the norm is guilty or not guilty. You are found not guilty if there is a reasonable doubt. I would imagine no self respecting prosecutor would bring such a case in Canada without a suspect in hand. Another tack to have taken would have been to tackle it on the merit of the physical evidence.
Prosecution evidence is available in the files. for the defense, you have no suspect to tie the evidence to therefore it can not be conclusively stated that each woman was in fact murdered by Jack the Ripper. Therefore ladies and gentlemen of the jury you must acquit JtR.
Is it fair, or just, no but in essence that is what has happened. Time has stood as jury for a criminal who never stood in the dock. Welcome to the boards. Kindest regards, Neil |
