Jack the Ripper

[gabriel]

1. Polly Nichols, found 3.40am Thursday August 30

2. Annie Chapman found 6.00am Friday September 7

3. Liz Stride found 1.00am Sunday September 30

4. Cathy Eddowes found 1.45am Sunday September 30

5. Mary Kelly found10.45am Friday November 9


All were murdered Thurs, Fri, Sat. This suggests to me that Jack went hunting when he could. He went out with the definite intention, on those nights, of killing a woman. Which is another reason, IMO, that Stride was Jack's first victim on Sept 30. He couldn't mutilate her which was what was driving him so he found another prostitute as soon as he could.

Jack wasn't able or free to kill any time he felt like it. I believe there's a definite timetable here. And yes, he stopped because he was either stopped or he stopped himself.

[gabriel]

listverse.com/2009/02/08/top-10-interesting-jack-the-ripper-suspects/

The identity of Jack the Ripper is probably the most famous unsolved crime in history. With the horror and the history surrounding the events, it has become an increasingly popular topic in recent years with many new suspects being put forth. This list looks at 10 of the most interesting suspects – some considered by the police at the time, and others recently suggested.

Number Ten - Lewis Carroll
Carroll, author of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass, was named as a suspect based upon anagrams which author Richard Wallace devised for his book Jack the Ripper, Light-Hearted Friend. This claim is not generally taken seriously by other scholars. Wallace posited that Carroll was assisted in the crimes by his friend Thomas Vere Bayne. This theory was based primarily on a number of anagrams derived from passages in two of Carroll’s works, The Nursery Alice, an adaptation of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland for younger readers, and from the first volume of Sylvie and Bruno. Wallace claimed that the books contained hidden but detailed descriptions of the murders. This theory gained enough attention to make Carroll a late but notable addition to the list of suspects, although one that is generally not taken very seriously. It should be noted that Carroll was very interested in word tricks and this certainly gives a little more weight to the theory.

Number Nine - Prince Albert Victor

Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale (8 January 1864 – 14 January 1892) was first mentioned in print as a potential suspect in 1962 when author Philippe Jullian published a biography of his father, Edward VII of the United Kingdom. Jullian made a passing reference to rumours that Albert Victor might have been responsible for the murders. Though Jullian made no reference to the date when the rumour first started and did not detail his source, it is possible that the rumour derived indirectly from Dr. Thomas E. A. Stowell. The theory was brought to major public attention in 1970 when Stowell published an article in The Criminologist which revealed his suspicion that Prince Albert Victor had committed the murders after being driven mad by syphilis. The suggestion was widely dismissed as Albert Victor had strong alibis for the murders, and it is unlikely that he suffered from syphilis.

Number Eight - Jill the Ripper
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and William Stewart advanced theories involving a female murderer dubbed “Jill the Ripper.” Supporters of this theory believe that the murderer worked, or posed, as a midwife. She could be seen with bloody clothes without attracting unwanted attention and suspicion and would be more easily trusted by the victims than a man. A suspect suggested as fitting this profile is Mary Pearcey, who in October 1890, killed her lover’s wife and child, though there is no indication she was ever a midwife. E. J. Wagner, in The Science of Sherlock Holmes, offers in passing another possible suspect, Constance Kent, who had served 20 years for the murder of her younger brother at the age of sixteen. There is some inconclusive DNA evidence taken from the letters sent to the police – this evidence does not rule out the possibility of the killer being a woman.

Number Seven - Dr Neill Cream
Cream was a doctor secretly specializing in abortions. He was born in Scotland, educated in London, active in Canada and later in Chicago, Illinois. In 1881 he was found to be responsible for fatally poisoning several of his patients of both sexes. Originally there was no suspicion of murder in these cases, but Cream himself demanded an examination of the bodies, apparently an attempt to draw attention to himself. Imprisoned in the Illinois State Penitentiary in Joliet, Illinois, he was released on 31 July 1891, on good behaviour. Moving to London, he resumed killing and was soon arrested. He was hanged on 15 November 1892. According to some sources, his last words were reported as being “I am Jack…”, interpreted to mean Jack the Ripper. He was still imprisoned at the time of the Ripper murders, but some authors have suggested that he could have bribed officials and left the prison before his official release, or that he left a look-alike to serve the prison term in his place.

Number Six - Dr Tumblety
Francis Tumblety was a seemingly uneducated or self-educated Irish-American raised from an infant in Rochester, New York, where he ostensibly trained as a homeopathic physician at Hahneman Hospital. He earned a small fortune posing as a quack “Indian Herb” doctor throughout the United States and Canada, and occasionally travelling across Europe as well. Tumblety was in England in 1888 and had visited the country on other occasions; during one such earlier trip he became closely acquainted with Victorian writer Thomas Henry Hall Caine, with whom it was suggested he had an affair and from whom he tried to borrow money. He claimed to have treated many famous English patients, including Charles Dickens, for a variety of illnesses. He was arrested on 7 November 1888, on charges of “gross indecency”, apparently for engaging in homosexuality. Notorious in the United States for his scams, including selling forged Union military discharge papers during the American Civil War and impersonating an army officer, news of his arrest led some to suggest he was the Ripper.

Number Five - Aaron Kosminski

Kominski was a member of London’s Polish Jewish population. He worked in London as a hairdresser, but he was born in K³odawa. He was certified insane and admitted to Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum in February 1891. He was named as a suspect in Chief Constable Melville Macnaghten’s memoranda, which stated that there were strong reasons for suspecting him, that he “had a great hatred of women, with strong homicidal tendencies”, and that he strongly resembled “the man seen by a City PC” near Mitre Square. Aaron Kosminski meets some of the criteria in the general profile of serial killers as outlined by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal profiler John Douglas and Robert Ressler. He also lived within a mile of the sites of the murders.

Number Four - Thomas Cutbush

In November 2008, a newspaper reported that files released from Broadmoor high security hospital indicate that Thomas Hayne Cutbush may have been responsible for the murders, which ceased from the time of his detention. Cutbush was sent to Lambeth Infirmary in 1891 suffering delusions thought to have been caused by syphilis. After stabbing one woman and attempting to stab a second he was pronounced insane and committed to Broadmoor that same year, where he remained until his death in 1903. The paper also reported that Cutbush was the nephew of a Scotland Yard superintendent, and speculated that this may have led to a cover-up of the killer’s identity. The idea that Cutbush was the Ripper was first raised by newspapers shortly after his arrest.

Number Three- Dr Gull
Gull was physician-in-ordinary to Queen Victoria. He was named as the Ripper as part of the evolution of the masonic/royal conspiracy theory. Thanks to the popularity of this theory among fiction writers and for its dramatic nature, Gull shows up as the Ripper in a number of books and films (including a 1988 TV film Jack the Ripper starring Michael Caine and the graphic novel From Hell written by Alan Moore). It is just possible that Gull’s “candidacy” as a Ripper suspect is due to an odd item connected to his career. In April 1876 Gull was one of the physicians called to “the Priory”, the home of the barrister Charles Bravo when he was poisoned. Gull (like the other physicians) did what he could do, but he was hampered in not knowing the nature of the poison involved. His bedside manner on this occasion, even given the horror of speeding events or sheer desperation, were hardly conducive to easing the dying man’s mind. Gull would testify at the massively covered coroner’s proceedings that summer, and insist it was suicide.

Number Two - George!!! (Just for you , Anna)
Chapman was born Seweryn Klosowski in Poland, but went to the United Kingdom sometime between 1887 and 1888, later (c. 1893/94) assuming the name of Chapman (no relation to Annie Chapman, one of the victims). Without question a duplicitous and cold character who undertook several aliases, he was guilty of successively poisoning three of his wives, crimes for which he was hanged in 1903. He lived in Whitechapel, London, at the time of the killings where he had been working as a barber since arriving in England. He was at one time the favored suspect and is considered by many modern commentators to be the most likely killer. Chapman is supposed by some to have had the medical skills necessary to commit the mutilations (although the level of skill evidenced by the Ripper is a matter of debate, and divided medical opinions at the time). However, the main argument against him is the fact that he murdered his three wives with poison, and it is uncommon (though not unheard of) for a serial killer to make such a drastic change in modus operandi.

Number One - Guess who? Montague John Druitt

Druitt was born in Wimborne Minster, Dorset, England, the son of a prominent local physician. He was educated at Winchester College and New College Oxford. He graduated from Oxford in 1880 and two years later was admitted to the Inner Temple and called to the bar in 1885. He practiced as a barrister and a special pleader until his death. His body was found floating in the River Thames off Thorneycroft’s torpedo works near Chiswick on 31 December 1888. Medical examination suggested that his body was kept at the bottom of the river for several weeks by stones placed in his pockets. The coroner’s jury concluded that he committed suicide by drowning “whilst of unsound mind.” His disappearance and death shortly after the fifth and last canonical murder (which took place on 9 November 1888) and alleged “private information” led some of the investigators years later to suggest he was the Ripper, thus explaining the end to the series of murders.

Author: J Frater.

[gabriel]

The list I posted above is described as the most interesting, not the most probable. Just to give you some ideas if you're pondering in an idle moment as to Jack's identity. I hope I'm giving all the suspects a fair hearing as to the points for and against them.

[♫anna♫]

It's a disgrace that Lewis Carroll, Sir Albert and Cream, who was imprisoned in the US are on the list. I would exonerate Druitt too!
I believe Druitt was simply the post mortem victim of McNaughton's misguided conviction that the ripper was mentally ill and would self destruct! Abberline summed the facts up well concerning Druitt! We have to believe that McNaughton á la freemason conspiracy was intructed to not inform Abberline about Druitt and to destroy all his notes about Druitt. There is absolutely NO evidence that Druitt visited WhiteChapel-a dangerous slum that a slender lily white, possibly gay guy, would avoid at all costs! Tumblety, clearly a homosexual, and that he at age 55 would possibly go into history as the oldest serial killer is extremely unlikely, but at least there's evidence to put him WhiteChapel-unless the video i posted spread misinformation.
Other sources place Tumblety in London and don't claim he resided in WhiteChapel.

Yes of the known suspects Chapman/Klosowovski is the most serious "candidate". He passed that point of no return to become a serial killer, which is a huge leap. The objection that serial killers can't change their preferred modus operandi is weak. I feel a major flaw in the ripper profile is the belief that mutilation was his main source of pleasure! A secondary pleasure perhaps, but exhibitionism was in my humble opinion was the major kill drive.

In the ripper=Chapman scenario Chapman would have enjoyed posing with his deceased wives, whose internal organs were ravaged by his poison! A pleasure which he could only indirectly experience with the shocking ripper murders.

I would say that if it's not Chapman the ripper probably isn't on the suspect list. Kosminski is worth a glance and Burnett=2nd ripper in the Mary Kelly murder is a theoretical possibility. The other suspects seem for the most part to be victims of the Victorian era flop attempt to draw up a "ripper profile" or tabloid hysteria and ripper profiteers.

[gabriel]

Anna, that was an interesting suspects list not a probable one. So I'll give you my thoughts about each of them.

10. Lewis Carroll. Huh? Whoever thought of this needs to get a life.

9. PAV. Darling of the Masonic conspiracies. Wasn't in London, wasn't associated with prostitutes in Whitechapel. I think he had syphilis (and I think that's what killed him) but he sure as hell didn't get it from women who sold their bodies for a drink of gin.

8. Jill. Rubbish.

7. Cream. I enjoy the bit that he had a doppelganger who was roaming around pretending to be him while he was murdering in Whitechapel.
H'm. Blame it on my evil twin.

6. Quack Tumblety. Known homosexual. They kill within their known target group. Men.

5. Kosminski. I think he's a definite suspect.

4. Cutbush. Nut job. No relation.

3. Good old Dr Gull. Masonic conspiracy. Forget it.

2. OK Anna. You know why I don't think Chapman is Jack.

1. MJ Druitt. When I first became interested in Jack and some files and private documents were opened, Druitt seemed the candidate. I don't think so any longer but I still am interested in why McNaughton and the officers who supported him discussed Druitt. The 'personal info' that McNaughton refers to bugs me.

There was a slight family connection between Druitt's family and McNaughton's family. I wonder...

[♫anna♫]

I agree that Kosminski should remain as a suspect, but i probably have the same feeling about him as you do about Chapman. Two known "threatening gestures" in his lifetime and no history of violence. Kosminski was described as "slender", implying weak. The ripper virtually beheaded his victims with his strong arm.


Here's another computer geoprofiling try, but the people, who come up with Dean Str., etc. seem to ignore the fact that Sutney, downtown London, etc.. didn't offer the careless prostitutes and uncaring neighbors typical of WhiteChapel.

[trubble]

Thanks for the BTK info and the Ripper timetable. I'm glad you are both dismissing Lewis Carroll because Alice in Wonderland (and through the Looking Glass) are on my top ten children's books list.

Apparently, I'm in the slow readers group here and not focusing enough! So I'll start with Kosminski and try to see why he's on both your shortlists.

Edit - I see. But then there's Chapman, Tumblety and William Bury.

No wonder this has never been solved. Each one seems like the one!

I am filtering by asking 'why did the murders stop?' because I can't think of any other way to really judge people. To me, the Bury story fits so neatly in every way.

His background is shaky and the years leading up to the murders are missing. He worked with prostitutes and married one. He killed his wife in a similar fashion. Discrepencies between his wife's killing and the other murders could be explained by a confessional to the wife perhaps?

He killed her because he couldn't help himself but maybe she had discovered and he had confessed and that had calmed him for a few weeks. Then after he killed her he realised he had got rid of the one thing that had been helping him and that confusion meant he did not continue with the mutilation.

The only thing I don't understand is why the police dismissed the idea. Were they (like in the Yorkshire Ripper case) so stuck on a couple of wrong ideas that they dismissed him over an incorrect lead (such as accent)?

[♫anna♫]

Oct 28, 2009 20:17:30 GMT trubble said:

Edit - I see. But then there's Chapman, Tumblety and William Bury.

Hi Trubble!
William Bury! You can tell i'm not a 'ripperologist' because i wasn't familiar with this suspect! Yes Bury is a proven murderer!
www.casebook.org/suspects/bury.html

[♫anna♫]

Oct 28, 2009 20:17:30 GMT trubble said:

Thanks for the BTK info and the Ripper timetable. I'm glad you are both dismissing Lewis Carroll because Alice in Wonderland (and through the Looking Glass) are on my top ten children's books list.

Apparently, I'm in the slow readers group here and not focusing enough! So I'll start with Kosminski and try to see why he's on both your shortlists.

Edit - I see. But then there's Chapman, Tumblety and William Bury.

No wonder this has never been solved. Each one seems like the one!

I am filtering by asking 'why did the murders stop?' because I can't think of any other way to really judge people. To me, the Bury story fits so neatly in every way.

His background is shaky and the years leading up to the murders are missing. He worked with prostitutes and married one. He killed his wife in a similar fashion. Discrepencies between his wife's killing and the other murders could be explained by a confessional to the wife perhaps?

He killed her because he couldn't help himself but maybe she had discovered and he had confessed and that had calmed him for a few weeks. Then after he killed her he realised he had got rid of the one thing that had been helping him and that confusion meant he did not continue with the mutilation.

The only thing I don't understand is why the police dismissed the idea. Were they (like in the Yorkshire Ripper case) so stuck on a couple of wrong ideas that they dismissed him over an incorrect lead (such as accent)?

Yes indeed Trubble William Bury is a person of possible interest in the ripper case! He lived in the district of Bow, which is also in East London and the wiki link places it near White Chapel. Does anyone know where Bow is in relation to White Chapel?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Bury

[trubble]

Anna, I've been following this thread and trying to grasp what you and Gabe are saying and two things strike me.

One is that Chapman makes an excellent suspect, you have put forward very persuasive arguments about the main flaw in any prosecution case, his change of M.O., (and Gabe has thrown some good counter arguments back) that have made me think. Ultimately, I am willing to believe that he changed M.O. thanks to your points -- but it's something Gabe said about the way he 'toyed' with the victims via poison compared to the faster and more frenzied actions of the Whitechapel murders that makes it seem incredible that such a change in gratification could have happened. I can see now why Chapman is your strongest suspect but I just can't believe it's him.

The second thing that stands out is the wealth of Gabe's ''profiling'' information and having just reread a big batch of this thread I find that Bury fits Gabe's profile again and again. Now maybe I am doing a Cornwell-Sickert act and ignoring the facts that don't fit but I am leaning more and more towards Bury.

I expect Gabe to come along any moment and dash my theory.

[trubble]

Oct 28, 2009 22:16:48 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

Oct 28, 2009 20:17:30 GMT trubble said:

Thanks for the BTK info and the Ripper timetable. I'm glad you are both dismissing Lewis Carroll because Alice in Wonderland (and through the Looking Glass) are on my top ten children's books list.

Apparently, I'm in the slow readers group here and not focusing enough! So I'll start with Kosminski and try to see why he's on both your shortlists.

Edit - I see. But then there's Chapman, Tumblety and William Bury.

No wonder this has never been solved. Each one seems like the one!

I am filtering by asking 'why did the murders stop?' because I can't think of any other way to really judge people. To me, the Bury story fits so neatly in every way.

His background is shaky and the years leading up to the murders are missing. He worked with prostitutes and married one. He killed his wife in a similar fashion. Discrepencies between his wife's killing and the other murders could be explained by a confessional to the wife perhaps?

He killed her because he couldn't help himself but maybe she had discovered and he had confessed and that had calmed him for a few weeks. Then after he killed her he realised he had got rid of the one thing that had been helping him and that confusion meant he did not continue with the mutilation.

The only thing I don't understand is why the police dismissed the idea. Were they (like in the Yorkshire Ripper case) so stuck on a couple of wrong ideas that they dismissed him over an incorrect lead (such as accent)?

Yes indeed Trubble William Bury is a person of possible interest in the ripper case! He lived in the district of Bow, which is also in East London and the wiki link places it near White Chapel. Does anyone know where Bow is in relation to White Chapel?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Bury

Yikes, Anna. What a complicated question that turns out to be! because yes, Bow and Whitechapel are linked but people out there on the worldwideweb have spent a lot of time trying to both prove and disprove that Bury was living near enough the murders to make it plausible.

I see one person has surmised from all the info that Bury may have had to walk 40mins to 1 hour to reach his murder spots. I don't have a problem with envisaging that.


Here's my simplistic take on it - Bury arrived in the area at the right time with a changed name (was Berry on an earlier census) and he leaves at the right time and lies about where he is going. Then two months later he kills his wife in virtually the same manner as the Ripper. Two months after that he is hanged and the ''Ripper'' never strikes again.

It's a terrible coincidence if it's not him.


Casebook: by Bill Beadle - Where we are with Bury

[♫anna♫]

Hi Trubble!
I googled up this map of London eastend districts. Whitechapel is on the left side, Bow West and Bow East are on the north. In the Bury=ripper scenario the ripper would have to walk through a couple districts to reach Whitechapel. True the first offical ripper murder and the Tabram murder occured on the east side of Whitechapel. This would of course be the first area of Whitechapel that a pedestrian from Bow would reach, if Whitechapel was his destination.

Bury crossed the point of no return by committing a horrific murder. Most of the ripper suspects have never demonstrated that they were capable of homicide. The ripper according to Gabriel's videos strangled the victims first! The throat slitting and mutilations were all done after the victim was dead. With the heart and circulation stopped the ripper wouldn't have to worry much about blood splattering onto his clothes. The assumption that some "ripperologists" make that the ripper was covered with blood after the murders is simply an assumption or speculation without basis!

Bury is certainly a more serious suspect than the much maligned Druitt. The ripper however removed key organs, uterus, kidneys, etc. in pitch darkness. Random chance? Or the work of a trained surgeon? I can imagine a surgeon being trained to operate in the dark with corpses.. This would be quite a test to seperate the talented surgeons from the ordinary.. I haven't found any indication that Bury had surgical skills or anatomical knowledge, but nevertheless Trubble you may have mentioned a suspect for 2nd, 3rd or 4th place on my list.

[gabriel]

Oct 29, 2009 0:13:33 GMT trubble said:

Anna, I've been following this thread and trying to grasp what you and Gabe are saying and two things strike me.

One is that Chapman makes an excellent suspect, you have put forward very persuasive arguments about the main flaw in any prosecution case, his change of M.O., (and Gabe has thrown some good counter arguments back) that have made me think. Ultimately, I am willing to believe that he changed M.O. thanks to your points -- but it's something Gabe said about the way he 'toyed' with the victims via poison compared to the faster and more frenzied actions of the Whitechapel murders that makes it seem incredible that such a change in gratification could have happened. I can see now why Chapman is your strongest suspect but I just can't believe it's him.

The second thing that stands out is the wealth of Gabe's ''profiling'' information and having just reread a big batch of this thread I find that Bury fits Gabe's profile again and again. Now maybe I am doing a Cornwell-Sickert act and ignoring the facts that don't fit but I am leaning more and more towards Bury.

I expect Gabe to come along any moment and dash my theory.

Well I'm here and Bury has hung around around for a few years. He's another make the facts fit your theory.

He beat the cr** out of the poor woman he called his wife. Then he killed her. He didn't go searching for victims. He already had one.

[gabriel]

ezinearticles.com/?The-Jack-the-Ripper-Story---The-Primary-Suspect&id=1942073

Chapman arrived in London in 1887, one year before the Ripper's murder spree. The records show that he worked as a hairdresser's assistant in the East End. Are you confused as to why a surgeon would end up working as a hairdresser's assistant? In those days, the barber's trade and surgery were considered related professions. In ancient times, before anesthesia was used regularly, the best qualification for a surgeon was to be quick with a blade and have a strong stomach. If a man could shave a beard, he was qualified to perform surgery. This barber-surgeon combination began to fall apart as medicine advanced. In 1745, a British act of parliament officially separated the barbers and surgeons into different guilds.

Chapman did study to become a junior surgeon, but there are no records to say that he became one. While Chapman may or may not have been a surgeon, he was a good enough barber that he eventually ran a barber shop in the basement of the White Hart Pub in 1889, which was located just a few steps from the site of what may have been the first of Jack the Ripper's murders.. He was also something of a ladies' man, but he did not keep them long. His wandering eye lost him one woman who he got pregnant and then abandoned. Thanks to another woman named Annie Chapman, he did change his name from Severin Klosowski to George Chapman to match hers around 1895, seven years after the Ripper murders. This new name helped him to hide from his former wives, girlfriends and miscellaneous children.

George Chapman entered into sham marriages with several new lovers. Chapman treated all his wives the same way. When he was tired of beating one woman and found a new one that interested him, he would slowly poison his wife with antimony, bringing on a slow death with horrible stomach pains. There was no reason why Chapman would have been compelled to poison these women to get rid of them. Since he was not married to any of them, he could simply have told one to move out and had his new woman move in. Instead, he murdered two wives and was well on his way to killing a third when his wife-of-the-time's family demanded that a new doctor examine her. He panicked and increased the dose of poison, which killed his wife almost immediately. This suspicious death led to an autopsy. After poison was found in the body of his third wife, the other two wives were dug up. All three were found to have been slowly poisoned. On March 20, 1903, a jury took only 11 minutes to find Chapman guilty of murder. Two and a half weeks later, Chapman hanged. To his last breath, Chapman claimed that he was innocent, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Some have considered Chapman an excellent possibility for Jack the Ripper since he was a convicted multiple murderer and was skilled in wielding a knife thanks to his studies in surgery and his work as a barber. His cold, violent treatment of women combined with his sexual appetite and constantly roaming eye seem consistent with the sociopathic profile of Jack the Ripper. Even Chapman's visits in London and the United States correspond with the times of these violent murders. The Ripper murders started soon after he arrived in London and stopped soon after he left London for the United States.

There are two problems with definitively naming Chapman as the Ripper, besides the lack of actual proof. The first is that the witnesses who may have seen Jack the Ripper described him as being in his 30s. At the time of the Ripper murders, Chapman was only 23. It's possible that he was never seen or that the witnesses may have incorrectly guessed his age. The second problem is that Chapman was actually found guilty of slowing poisoning his wife over a period of months. This type of slow methodical killing does not fit with the violent, bloody killing methods favored by Jack the Ripper. If Chapman was Jack the Ripper, it is possible that he changed his method of killing to better suit his victims, but going from viciously ripping apart unknown women with a knife to slowly poisoning his own wives and watching them waste away over weeks seems like it would be very anticlimactic for a killer like Jack the Ripper.

I am interested in discussing every suspect but it wasn't Chapman/Klosowski. No way. I don't know a nice way to say this. Damn Abberline for opening his big mouth. He was way out of touch with what was going on. If he hadn't talked about Chapman we wouldn't still be having this debate about Klosowski.

[trubble]

Oct 29, 2009 11:02:04 GMT gabriel said:

Well I'm here and Bury has hung around around for a few years. He's another make the facts fit your theory.

He beat the cr** out of the poor woman he called his wife. Then he killed her. He didn't go searching for victims. He already had one.

The Yorkshire Ripper also had a wife.


The Suffolk Strangler (murdered five women working as prostitutes in a six-week spree) had a wife he seems to have married to get a pub - and he battered her about - and at the time of his murders he had a partner. www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23440572-my-violent-life-as-suffolk-stranglers-wife-and-how-i-fear-he-killed-suzy-lamplugh-too.do


I wouldn't dismiss Bury on marital grounds.

[♫anna♫]

Oct 29, 2009 11:16:22 GMT gabriel said:

I am interested in discussing every suspect but it wasn't Chapman/Klosowski. No way. I don't know a nice way to say this. Damn Abberline for opening his big mouth. He was way out of touch with what was going on. If he hadn't talked about Chapman we wouldn't still be having this debate about Klosowski.

I think it was McNaughton, who spouted nonsense about potential suspects! Druitt and Ostrog?? Ridiculous! I'll put up a post later attacking the Kosminski=ripper theory! Abberline always seemed to be more free of the Victorian era biases that created a faulty ripper profile. Yes the first serial killer, who liked to display his victims was expected by the Victorian era police and society to be a messy, deranged animal.

Bury hasn't been researched much..but is also a person of interest here.

[trubble]

Oct 29, 2009 2:38:57 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

Hi Trubble!
I googled up this map of London eastend districts. Whitechapel is on the left side, Bow West and Bow East are on the north. In the Bury=ripper scenario the ripper would have to walk through a couple districts to reach Whitechapel. True the first offical ripper murder and the Tabram murder occured on the east side of Whitechapel. This would of course be the first area of Whitechapel that a pedestrian from Bow would reach, if Whitechapel was his destination.

Bury crossed the point of no return by committing a horrific murder. Most of the ripper suspects have never demonstrated that they were capable of homicide. The ripper according to Gabriel's videos strangled the victims first! The throat slitting and mutilations were all done after the victim was dead. With the heart and circulation stopped the ripper wouldn't have to worry much about blood splattering onto his clothes. The assumption that some "ripperologists" make that the ripper was covered with blood after the murders is simply an assumption or speculation without basis!

Bury is certainly a more serious suspect than the much maligned Druitt. The ripper however removed key organs, uterus, kidneys, etc. in pitch darkness. Random chance? Or the work of a trained surgeon? I can imagine a surgeon being trained to operate in the dark with corpses.. This would be quite a test to seperate the talented surgeons from the ordinary.. I haven't found any indication that Bury had surgical skills or anatomical knowledge, but nevertheless Trubble you may have mentioned a suspect for 2nd, 3rd or 4th place on my list.

Hi Anna. I will continue to find out about the geographical ramifications regarding Bury but at the moment I don't see the need to place his home absolutely geographically central to the murder grounds. Beside them is enough, no?


Gabe, I am trying not to make facts fit into theory although in a way it's the only way to start the process.

These are the first things that I am currently trying to verify, so if either of you can prove them incorrect, please do:


Bury could reach the area easily; he appears to have been missing from home on the nights of the murders; as Anna says, he appears to be the only one who has shown his capacity to murder in a such a fashion; he used prostitutes; he worked as a horse butcher.


Here's a piece that offers no support for theories, eastlondonhistory.com/william-bury-murderer/ instead it is written as gospel truth, but it alludes to a few things that are worth trying to establish such as Bury working as a Horse Butcher or living in a brothel or attacks on women in early 1888 -- yes, it may all be rubbish but we'll see.

One thing I don't think is worth bothering about is the hangman's story. The intrigue and penny dreadfulness that built up around the case is the biggest hurdle to jump when trying to look for facts.

[trubble]

Oct 29, 2009 11:16:22 GMT gabriel said:

There are two problems with definitively naming Chapman as the Ripper, besides the lack of actual proof. The first is that the witnesses who may have seen Jack the Ripper described him as being in his 30s. At the time of the Ripper murders, Chapman was only 23. It's possible that he was never seen or that the witnesses may have incorrectly guessed his age. The second problem is that Chapman was actually found guilty of slowing poisoning his wife over a period of months. This type of slow methodical killing does not fit with the violent, bloody killing methods favored by Jack the Ripper. If Chapman was Jack the Ripper, it is possible that he changed his method of killing to better suit his victims, but going from viciously ripping apart unknown women with a knife to slowly poisoning his own wives and watching them waste away over weeks seems like it would be very anticlimactic for a killer like Jack the Ripper.

I am interested in discussing every suspect but it wasn't Chapman/Klosowski. No way. I don't know a nice way to say this. Damn Abberline for opening his big mouth. He was way out of touch with what was going on. If he hadn't talked about Chapman we wouldn't still be having this debate about Klosowski.

I agree that the pay-off he might have got from poisoning does not match the pay-off he might have got from butchering and that change in gratification, rather than change of M.O. per se, would need to be explained away if he was Jack. I can't think how it would be explained.

The witnesses and the age difference are not as important. Witnesses are notoriously incorrect, it's just a human flaw.


And the biggest question of all is left unanswered if Chapman is Jack -- why did the murders stop?

Casebook says: www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.trialgeorge.html

''Chapman and his wife left in May, 1890, for America''

That piece also includes a murder in 1899 and American 'Ripper' murders but these are not factored in for any other suspect - why?

[♫anna♫]

Oct 29, 2009 16:41:09 GMT trubble said:

Here's a piece that offers no support for theories, eastlondonhistory.com/william-bury-murderer/ instead it is written as gospel truth, but it alludes to a few things that are worth trying to establish such as Bury working as a Horse Butcher or living in a brothel or attacks on women in early 1888 -- yes, it may all be rubbish but we'll see.

One thing I don't think is worth bothering about is the hangman's story. The intrigue and penny dreadfulness that built up around the case is the biggest hurdle to jump when trying to look for facts.

A very interesting link Trubble! Yes the ripper's autograph was removing the intestines as Bury did in his known murder. A coincidence, a copy kill or is he a serious ripper suspect..

The Bury or Chapman as the ripper scenarios don't sell tabloids like the Royal conspiracy and freemason theories do. Expect the ripper profiteers to resist having suspects like these kill the cult and legend.

[Liberator]

What about the 'Juwes' graffito? Was that by Jack himself, was it by some trouble-maker, was it a mis-spelling of Jews, was it Masonic, was it an ignorant confusion of the two? Do the Ripper murders reflect Masonic penalties or is any connection only vague? I'm for the theory that some women who knew too much about a royal bastard had to be silenced in a way that showed the police that forces they should not meddle with were at work. A hundred years before, royal bastards would be insignificant, but this is Victoria's era when such things were no longer respectable. Yet we know that future Edward VII put it around like a stoat on viagra. There must have been some!

[♫anna♫]

Oct 30, 2009 5:58:54 GMT Liberator said:

What about the 'Juwes' graffito? Was that by Jack himself, was it by some trouble-maker, was it a mis-spelling of Jews, was it Masonic, was it an ignorant confusion of the two? Do the Ripper murders reflect Masonic penalties or is any connection only vague? I'm for the theory that some women who knew too much about a royal bastard had to be silenced in a way that showed the police that forces they should not meddle with were at work. A hundred years before, royal bastards would be insignificant, but this is Victoria's era when such things were no longer respectable. Yet we know that future Edward VII put it around like a stoat on viagra. There must have been some!

There was plenty of graffiti in Whitechapel. Maybe the graffiti was already there before the ripper chose to dispose of his evidence on that spot. We'll never know.

[motorist]

mis-spelling my bottom. The masonic definition holds more water IMO. However, we don't know exactly how it was related to the killings

Juwes

[gabriel]

OK. Bury. Yes, I can see where he seems a promising lead but again there are incidents that don't fit what we do know about Jack. His victim saw a pocket knife in their bed. The landlady saw him straddling her with a table knife. Dr Bagster Phillips at Chapman's inquest testified that '...it must have been a very sharp knife with a thin narrow blade, and must have been at least 6in to 8in in length, probably longer.' 6-8 inches in length, probably longer, does not match a pocket knife or a table knife.

There was a clear motive for Bury's killing - he wanted her money. Jack was after any woman he could get his hands on.

After Kelly's murder in November, Bury does nothing for 2 months then turns on his wife? I do not believe that Jack, after what he did to Kelly, simply turned off his murderous rage. I don't think he could. Which is my main objection to Chapman. Bundy literally couldn't help himself at the end when he killed Kimberley Leach. Neither could John Wayne Gacy or Jeffrey Dahmer.

Jack was a disorganized killer. He had to kill and he did, no matter what the chance was of his being found. Chapman and Stride's murders are clear indicators of that. Bury shoves his wife in a box.

I don't find it a stretch to think that an alcoholic, who's murdered his wife and is probably coming off a bender, would write something strange comparing himself to Jack.

[gabriel]

Oct 30, 2009 6:15:44 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

Oct 30, 2009 5:58:54 GMT Liberator said:

What about the 'Juwes' graffito? Was that by Jack himself, was it by some trouble-maker, was it a mis-spelling of Jews, was it Masonic, was it an ignorant confusion of the two? Do the Ripper murders reflect Masonic penalties or is any connection only vague? I'm for the theory that some women who knew too much about a royal bastard had to be silenced in a way that showed the police that forces they should not meddle with were at work. A hundred years before, royal bastards would be insignificant, but this is Victoria's era when such things were no longer respectable. Yet we know that future Edward VII put it around like a stoat on viagra. There must have been some!

There was plenty of graffiti in Whitechapel. Maybe the graffiti was already there before the ripper chose to dispose of his evidence on that spot. We'll never know.

It's really hard to say about the Grafitto. Anna is absolutely right. No-one will ever know. You can argue for it being Jack (and the Masonic conspiracists have been doing that for 30 years) and you can argue against it. Area was full of Jewish people. Someone who was anti-Semitic.

Myself, I think the fact that it was found so close to the only piece of physical evidence Jack ever left - the bloodied bit of apron from Cathy Eddowes - makes it important enough not to be overlooked.

At the very least, it should have been photographed. Warren blathered on about public unrest but if the police really had wanted to keep the public away until they could photograph the writing, then they would have found a way.

However, I must say I do find the idea of Jack wiping his bloody knife then whipping a piece of chalk out his pocket, when 2 separate police forces are hunting him, to write a strange message, pretty unlikely. Unless, of course, it was good old MJD, barrister/teacher, who happened to have an odd piece of chalk from school in his pocket!

[gabriel]

Well, the Masonic conspiracy.

The 1st time I heard of Jack and became interested in him was due to Stephen Knight and his book The Final Solution. I read that and I thought there you go. Royals and these Mason dudes killing women.

However, I grew up and read a lot of other books and realised the huge flaws in Knight's story. He supressed evidence that disagreed with him. Well, that's it for me from the start. As well, his research was fairly dodgy.

He said that Prince Albert and Annie Crook's daughter was run over by a coach authorised by the Masonic conspiracy, of course working through Buckingham Palace or Downing St, as you do. No such child existed. John Nettles was a coachman, he did have an accident involving a child in 1892 - hold on, 1892. 4 years after Jack.

Damn. All these great movies and TV series have all been based on Knight's Masonic/Palace conspiracy. It's good reading but it's cr**.

After The Final Solution, Knight went on to finish another book about the Masons. It wasn't flattering. I think he had a real agenda against them.
Unfortunately, he had a brain tumour and died not too long after.

I give no credence to any Masonic/Royal theories about Jack.