♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Oct 29, 2009 15:16:43 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Oct 29, 2009 16:41:09 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Oct 29, 2009 16:49:22 GMT
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♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Oct 30, 2009 5:56:44 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Oct 30, 2009 5:58:54 GMT
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♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Oct 30, 2009 6:15:44 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by motorist on Oct 30, 2009 6:26:24 GMT
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
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on Oct 30, 2009 7:13:59 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on Oct 30, 2009 7:39:46 GMT
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!
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on Oct 30, 2009 10:58:43 GMT
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.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Oct 30, 2009 15:44:26 GMT
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! If you're referring to Druitt he had to go the opposite direction for a 2 hour walk home to Blackhearth in the south. It's generally assumed the ripper was heading home after the Eddowes murder and he was going east/north, which points towards Bury, Chapman and other suspects in that general direction. It's assumed he just went into Ghould Str. to dispose of evidence and then continued his route. If the ripper was into graffitti he would have likely shown this with the Mary Kelly murder.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Oct 30, 2009 15:50:11 GMT
Is the discovery of the bloody apron fragment considered beyond doubt?
I am reminded of OJ Simpson and the convenient gloves and socks with blood on them. (I have always seen OJ as guilty but someone recently put doubt in my mind with the conspiracy theory that his son had dunnit).
Is there a chance that the cloth and the chalk message were a set up?
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Oct 30, 2009 15:55:56 GMT
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. Thanks, I'll think about that. No, it's not a stretch at all. I ignored it as evidence when thinking about his candidacy because there could be any number of explanations.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Oct 30, 2009 21:23:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on Oct 31, 2009 6:48:12 GMT
We know from witness descriptions that the men reliably witnessed with the victims were aged 28-35. They were not tall, 5ft10inch would be the max and probably shorter. A moustache but that was pretty common at the time. Descriptions of the clothes vary but Jack certainly wasn't astrakhan man with Kelly. I really doubt that astrakhan man existed.
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on Oct 31, 2009 9:47:04 GMT
Is the discovery of the bloody apron fragment considered beyond doubt? I am reminded of OJ Simpson and the convenient gloves and socks with blood on them. (I have always seen OJ as guilty but someone recently put doubt in my mind with the conspiracy theory that his son had dunnit). Is there a chance that the cloth and the chalk message were a set up? The piece of apron definitely belonged to Cathy Eddowes. The chalk message, like I said, you can argue it was Jack or it wasn't Jack. Anna is absolutely right. We will never know. But the message should have been photographed. And the police could have done that if they really wanted to. Jack passed through there. We know that because he left the apron. It's the only piece of physical evidence he left. A set up? Well, I don't believe in conspiracies so from my point of view, no.
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on Nov 1, 2009 5:46:46 GMT
This is a photo of a 19th century amputation knife, owned by Donald Rumbelow. It gives an idea of the weapon Jack would have used.
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on Nov 1, 2009 5:59:22 GMT
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/may/03/books.ukcrimeThis is almost 5 years old but new to me. I don't agree with many of the conclusions he makes.Jack the Ripper 'may have killed abroad'Murderer possibly a sailor rather than a surgeon, says new book Mark Honigsbaum The Guardian, Tuesday 3 May 2005 00.02 BST Article historyFor all the blood spilt by Jack the Ripper, and all the ink expended since by authors claiming to know his identity, ripperologists generally agree that with the killing of the prostitute Mary Kelly in Whitechapel on November 8 1888, his frenzied murder spree came to an abrupt end. After that "Jack" - if that was indeed his name - disappeared into the London fog, never to be seen again. But what if the murders continued in Managua, the capital of Nicaragua? And what if, after a break of eight months, there was a further Whitechapel killing which, as in the Kelly case, ended with a prostitute's throat being cut and her body mutilated, followed, three months later, by a further killing in Germany? That is the intriguing theory raised in a new book on the Whitechapel murders by Trevor Marriott, a former Bedfordshire police detective. Using modern police procedural techniques, Marriott has spent two years poring over the Ripper killings, re-examining the evidence given by police doctors and pathologists at the time. His conclusions, published this week in Jack the Ripper: the 21st Century Investigation, challenge the conventional wisdom that the murderer was a skilled surgeon. Moreover, Marriott says the location and timing of the killings - not far from London docks with gaps of several weeks in between - suggest the killer may have been a merchant seaman. Marriott thinks he may have identified the ship he arrived on - the Sylph, a 600-tonne cargo vessel which arrived in Britain from Barbados in July 1888, before the killing of the Ripper's first victim, Mary Ann Nichols, and which returned to the Caribbean on November 22, two weeks after the Kelly slaying, from where the same killer could have committed the Nicaraguan murder spree. "The detectives at the time took a very blinkered approach,' says Marriott. "They were convinced the killer was someone who lived or worked in the Whitechapel area. They completely overlooked the fact that there was a pattern emerging which pointed to the possibility the killer may have been a sailor who only occasionally visited Whitechapel, hence the gaps between the murders." Marriott is not the first person to claim to have uncovered sensational evidence about Whitechapel's most notorious unsolved murders. Hardly a month goes by without some revelation - the latest being the Swansea author Tony Williams's claim that the Ripper was his great-great uncle, Sir John Williams, Queen Victoria's obstetrician and a celebrated book collector who founded the National Library of Wales. Other recent suspects include James Maybrick, a Liverpool cotton broker who supposedly confessed to the killings in diaries which surfaced in the early 90s, and Francis Tumblety, an American doctor who before coming to England kept a collection of female body parts at his home in New York. Then there was American crime novelist Patricia Cornwell's claim two years ago that she had discovered DNA evidence tying the Victorian artist Walter Sickert to the Ripper letters. Like all similar claims to have "solved" the murders, Cornwell's thesis subsequently wilted under scrutiny. In his book, Marriott makes no such claims. Instead, he revisits the crime scenes and the testimony of contemporary witnesses. One of this most startling conclusions is that the Ripper need not have been a skilled surgeon - a long-held assumption based on the fact that in the case of the Ripper's second victim, Annie Chapman, both her vagina and part of her bladder were removed, and that in the case of Kelly her kidney was missing. But Marriott points out that those were the only two cases in which vital organs were expertly cut out and that they could have been removed at the mortuary before the police surgeon arrived to perform the postmortem, possibly by traders in body parts. He also says there has never been an adequate explanation for why the killings suddenly stopped. Most experts assume the murderer was jailed for other crimes or died. But if Marriott's theory is right, and Jack the Ripper was a crewman on the Sylph, then he may have been responsible for killings in Managua in January 1889 described in a report in the Times as "six of the most atrocious murders ever committed within the limits of this city". According to the Times report, two of the victims were "butchered out of all recognition" with their faces "horribly slashed". Both the mutilation of prostitutes' bodies and face slashing were a hallmark of the Whitechapel murders and a feature which led detectives to believe the Ripper was a serial sex attacker. Marriott also argues that the Ripper may have been responsible for a later murder of a Whitechapel prostitute not included in the usual five canonical Ripper slayings. Alice McKenzie was found mutilated in Castle Alley, north of Whitechapel Road, on July 17 1889. Like the other Ripper victims there were signs that she had been throttled before having her throat slit and her body mutilated. One of the police pathologists who conducted the postmortem on McKenzie concluded she should be counted as the sixth Ripper victim - a verdict with which the divisional surgeon disagreed at the time. If Marriott is right and the Ripper was a merchant seaman it might also explain that the Washington Star, bearing the dateline, Hamburg, 18 October 1889, reported the discovery of "the mutilated body" of a woman in Flensburg, a seaport with frequent sailings to London. The report was headlined, Jack the Ripper: has he left England to continue his crimes in Germany? The unusual suspects About 140 people have been fingered for the Ripper's crimes over the years, including: · George Chapman A Polish immigrant arrested in 1902 for poisoning several women, including his wife. Chapman's arrival in England coincided with the start of the Whitechapel murders and the killings ceased when he went to America. · Prince Albert Victor According to one theory, Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's grandson, committed the murders after being driven mad by syphilis. According to another, the murders were committed with the aid of Victoria's physician, Sir William Gull, as part of a cover-up to protect the royal family from Albert's affair with a Catholic commoner whose nanny was Mary Kelly. · Walter Sickert German-born painter who supposedly trawled the East End for prostitutes to model for him. One of his paintings, The Camden Town Murder, is said to bear a striking resemblance to the Mary Kelly murder scene. · James Maybrick Liverpool cotton merchant who frequented brothels and was addicted to arsenic and strychnine. In the early 1990s Michael Barrett, a former Liverpool scrap merchant, "discovered" a diary in which Maybrick confessed to the Whitechapel murders. Barrett later confessed to forging the diaries. · Francis Tumblety An American quack doctor who was in London at the time of the murders. Named as a suspect in 1913 by former special branch chief JG Littlechild, Tumblety was a sadist and homosexual who kept female body parts in a cabinet in his home. · Sir John Williams Queen Victoria's former obstetrician and founder of the National Library of Wales, Williams is the latest Ripper suspect. According to his great-great nephew, Swansea author Tony Williams, he was obsessed with female anatomy and infertility because of his wife's failure to conceive. He also worked at the Whitechapel workhouse infirmary, where he treated Mary Ann Nichols and three other Ripper victims.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Nov 1, 2009 6:46:07 GMT
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/may/03/books.ukcrimeIf Marriott is right and the Ripper was a merchant seaman it might also explain that the Washington Star, bearing the dateline, Hamburg, 18 October 1889, reported the discovery of "the mutilated body" of a woman in Flensburg, a seaport with frequent sailings to London. I'm not familar with the Managua killings, but could do a google search on that. Can it be proven that the Sylph was there at the exact time of the murders? Quoting presumably a newspaper, the "Washington Star" about a murder in Flensburg ( www.reisefuehrer-deutschland.de/schleswig-holstein/landkarte.htm ) and speculating that the "Sylph" was in the harbor with the sailor on board=ripper sounds a little concocted, but it might be a better read than the average detective story. This all sounds like the Feigenbaum=ripper speculation and tying world wide murders into the jtr cult. Well Mr. Marriott is certainly going to make money. The speculation that a mortican robbed and maybe sold organs of the victims is curious. The article or Marriott claims that Mary Kelly's kidney was missing too, but it's also claimed or factually stated that the kidney was found under Miss Kelly's severed head.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Nov 1, 2009 6:53:38 GMT
Is the discovery of the bloody apron fragment considered beyond doubt? I am reminded of OJ Simpson and the convenient gloves and socks with blood on them. (I have always seen OJ as guilty but someone recently put doubt in my mind with the conspiracy theory that his son had dunnit). Is there a chance that the cloth and the chalk message were a set up? I don't believe the ripper wrote that graffitti, but i can't prove it. I suspect the ripper noticed the fresh grafitti, but didn't really attentively read it and decided to toss that apron there. He was looking for a spot to disgard that apron.
|
|