So who was Jack the Ripper.

[perrymason]

If I read well, I did not say "sound concept", but "less unworkable "since Stride's murder, in some respects, can be connected with JtR, and since all police officials at the time did connect it.
As to the savagery, it can be observed in all 5 murders, more or less, and the "scale" has been well noticed - not only by me. And it's obvious that indoors the murderer had more time, and was, maybe, frustrated by weeks of inactivity.
This said, I appreciate your thoughts, I respect them and bear them in mind, though I think more likely that these 5 women have been killed by the same hand.
In my opinion, by the way, Tabram is more likely to be canonical than Stride.

Amitiés,
David

Hi David,

I have heard that position many times, so you are far from being alone in your beliefs. In fact, as far as popular theories on a Canonical Group, I disagree with Macnaughten, Swanson, Bond and others...so again, you are in the majority position.

My main problem with this is that people assume that if a woman was killed that Fall with a knife, that Jack could be involved. Yet there is no such belief with the Torso Killer, or the men or man that killed the other unfortunate women Jack supposedly didnt kill.

Its a certainty that other killers killed unfortunates with a knife during the period in question, so I prefer to group victims that have post mortem abdominal mutilations as a trademark, and as a focus of the attack.

Which is I think that Polly, Annie, Kate, and perhaps Alice were a more likely grouping than having Stride and Kelly listed under the same killer. Escalation doesnt address Stride, nor does it suggest that the killer would completely abandon his extremely successful method of acquistion, location and focus of the attack, if he killed Kelly.

A man who has killed 3 women and mutilated their abdomens post mortem has a pattern, one that is not present in Kelly or Stride.

Anyway, I respect your right to choose your own truth....I just suggest that it is your truth you argue for...not investigators who by all acounts had no evidence against anyone, and no idea who the man was, what he wanted, or where he was from... after 5 attributed killings in 2-1/2 months.

Best regards David.

[DVV]

I understand your approach, but why do you dismiss Kelly because of post-mortem? The fact that one organ is missing should fit the pattern, no?
And what about the the fact that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly had their throat cut down to the spine? This is also known from the autopsies, isn't it?
Amitiés,
David

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

For most people here it is probably no secret that I belong to those who actually dismisses Kelly as a Ripper victim (or at least keeps an open mind to that she may not have been).
However, the very deep throat cut down to the spine is probably the only major post mortem detail that I consider may present a problem, since I consider that to be a very significant part of the Rippers' method.

But the other mutilations details fail to convince me of the Ripper as the perpetrator. I have never belived in the 'indoors' argument as an acceptable explanation of over-excessive mutilations. To me the vast overkill and complete destruction points towards the murder being of very personal nature, since I've seen similar crime scenes in such domestic murders. The personal ones are often the worst. The mutilations in teh Ripper murders appear - to me, at least - to be much more systemathic and focused, while what we see in the Kelly murder is simple butchery without any sign of sophistication. To me the difference in both the killer's approach and in the nature of the mutilations are quite different.
Besides, there wasn't only 'one organ' missing from the Ripper victims, but usually one or two organs plus other parts of the body, like belly wall etc. The fact that the heart - and only the heart - is absent in the Kelly case and not the womb is to me of some significance. I know it may not be to others, but that can't be helped.

But as I said, the deep throat cut is a problem that shouldn't be underestimated and it is probably the only medical detail that still keeps me in some doubt.

All the best

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

So if he was local in the sense of living there,various "neighbours" would have reported it---in fact we know they did report on their neighbours.

Reported what, though? If he didn't exude any outward and visible signs of anything other than normality, what's to report? You then point out, correctly, that a "newcomer" was more likely to raise alarm from neighbours, but that's an argument against an outsider, not a local.

What is particularly surprising is that the prostitutes didnt appear to "know" him, and this was true as much at the time as afterwards when the murders had stopped.

We have no information either way. No "appearances" about it. For all we know, he could have used the services of any one of them on previous occasions, drank in the same pubs, frequented the same lodging houses etc. If he wasn't doing anything outwardly suspicious during his daily routine, the "vigilant neighbour" factor wouldn't have been an issue.

he saw Kate leading her mister into Mitre Square and went straight to the secret spot he had for himself to wait and watch there and when her" liaison" was over and the man had moved off

Or, far more likely, he was the mister observed in Eddowes' company ten minutes before the discovery of her body.

Best regards,
Ben

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I think Ben is right here.

He may very well have been known to the prostitutes, maybe even one of their clients. But they simply may not have made the connection or thought it was him, if he didn't display any significant anbormal behaviour otherwise in those situations.
We have seen this other times in connection other prostitute murders, and it is certainly not unusual that the killer later proves to be one of their regulars or someone they knew through their job.

Personally, I don't think the neighbours or any other paid much attention to him. The police investigated and interrogated hundreds of suspects (one contemporary newspaper spoke of nearly 800 suspects), and it's quite possible he might have been one of them. But then again, it is just as possible that he gave them the slip and managed to not draw any attention to himself.

All the best

[Ben]

and it is certainly not unusual that the killer later proves to be one of their regulars or someone they knew through their job.

Absolutely, Glenn.

I'm thinking of Arthur Shawcross, Steve Wright and others.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Indeed, Ben.

All the best

[perrymason]

I understand your approach, but why do you dismiss Kelly because of post-mortem? The fact that one organ is missing should fit the pattern, no?
And what about the the fact that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly had their throat cut down to the spine? This is also known from the autopsies, isn't it?
Amitiés,
David

Hi David,

I believe that you cannot exclude Kelly on the wounds incurred alone, but you perhaps can based on where she was killed, how the killer got to her in her room, whether she was sleeping at the time, and how he entered the room with nothing more from Mary than perhaps a cry of "oh-murder".... followed by silence.

Everything that was done to previous victims is present as far as wounds,......and I mean everything....culled from all 4 previous deaths. Which were written up in some detail in the press. Mary Kelly could have been killed by anyone that hated her enough, or was scorned by her, and had a predisposition for violence, and could read newspapers.

Do you know that on the day Mary was buried a man in Poplar cut his own throat with a knife so deeply he almost decapitated himself?

Any strong man, meaning to kill, and with a sharp blade could cut that deeply.

But since you mentioned the cut....tell me, from what direction was Marys throat cut,...what hand was used by her killer? A right handed killer would be greatly disadvantaged, and would be forced to cut from right to left, pulling the knife towards himself, rather than from left to right from behind the victim, which likely the other Canon victims received. And what other Canon victim was actively struggling with the killer before the throat was even cut?

Cheers David, all.

PS.....Glenn, Im pleased that you feel comfortable with supposing that Mary may not have been Jacks victim, its a minority position that I share with you. Nice to have an ally...carrying on the great traditions of Swedish-Canadian co-operation.

[Sasha]

Left field

Has anyone read James Patterson's book "Kiss the Girls"? Two clever pattern killers are collaborating, cooperating, and competing on their killings of young women. Two brothers, maybe? Twins perhaps? If it was a competition on these grounds that might explain Mary and why the killings stopped after her.

Yes I know I'm grasping at straws.

Sasha

[rain]

he could have been married and his wife would give him an alibi- like he was home all night.. she may have even been suspicious but did not want to say anything because if it came out that her husband was the ripper, her life would be ruined too.

[Red Zeppelin]

Well, certainly he fits the top four on the list but then so do literally thousands of other men.

Well I did say out of the 'named' suspects. I was really referring to those that have been named and fingered. Barnett fits Graham's profile more than any of the others.

Personally, I don't think any of the named suspects are even remotely likely.......except Barnett, and even then I wouldn't bet on him.

If Barnett's objective was to kill Mary, why didn't he kill her first? Why kill the others?

I don't believe his original objective was to kill Mary Kelly, if I consider he was the ripper.

And why didn't he kill her the night previous to her murder or earlier on the day of her murder?

Because he didn't plan to??? Perhaps their last meeting the night before her murder was the catalyst to do away with her. Things could have been said. She might have told him she was going away, as has been muted. Any number of things might have been said between them on that last evening that finally drove him to do what he did. He might have gone away with this weighing on his mind and came back later.

[Red Zeppelin]

Dunno, Red. You tell me.

Graham

Ok then Graham, yes I will tell you.

Your profile fits Barnett more than it does any other so far named suspect. I can't even see who else comes close to it.

[brummie]

It seems much more likely to me that JTR was a local man rather than most of the relatively well to do named suspects, who would attract attention and a fair amount of risk wandering the streets and alleyways of a place like Whitechapple. It probably wouldnt be that unusual for a local man to be seen around the streets at that time, it is quite interesting to note the level of activity going on in Whitechapple even in the very early hours.

As for Barnet being the killer I hve always been put off him as JTR because the motive I have seen put forward i.e. killing prostitutes in order to scare MJK off the streets, has always seemed unconvincing to me. However it occurs to me now the possibility that he could have killed the other victims after building up some kind of resentment of prostitutes because of MJK refusal to give up her profession. Maybe he didnt leave her at all but she kicked him out in order to carry on, and this led him to her total obliteration. It would be interesting to know his whereabouts on the nights of the other killings and if he had an alibi also what he did after the death of MJK.

[Graham]

Hi Brummie,

Barnett was interviewed by the police for what in those days was a long time - 4 hours. His clothes were also examined for bloodstains. Presumably he had good alibis for the other murder nights.

After MJK's death he stayed local (in Shadwell) with his common-law wife. I've always felt that had he killed MJK he'd have legged it out of the East End as fast as he could.

For full information about Barnett, read Bruce Paley's "Jack the Ripper - The Simple Truth".

Apparently my scratch profile a few posts ago of the Whitechapel Murderer fits Barnett according to some, but it wasn't intended to fit any named suspect.

Cheers,

Graham

[brummie]

There is also the other mysterious Joe who, according to Julia Venturney gave MJK money and who she was supposedly fond of, does anyone know if he was ever identified?