Summing Up And Verdict

[kjab3112]

Hi Lewis, anatomy and butchery knowledge were much more common in the 19th century than today (I remember a story about my Great Grandfather being told to go kill a chicken just after the war, he got bored of chasing and just swung the knife to good effect). My personal feeling would be a butcher would have the knife skills needed, a cotton merchant not likely. I have considered and even questioned the sleeping MJK scenario on these boards and wouldn’t rule out. However, as you said he’d observed others gaining entry - is that not local knowledge? The skill demonstrated for me was in the rapidity and silence of the killing, not necessarily the mutilation. For the killer I’d have thought the mutilation was the “fun part” that he wanted to enjoy, but until MJK he had to be willing to disappear on the smallest noise.

Paul

[The Rookie Detective]

"rapidity and silence"

As I have said several times; the killer's ability to achieve what he did, is indicative of a man who had some training in doing so; quite literally.

Criminals sent to ColdBath Fields prison in Clerkenwell were trained; albeit inadvertently, to repeatedly carry out intensive manual physical work and various other mundane tasks...in complete silence.

It was a form of punishment.

If the Ripper had spent some time in that prison, he would have been released with the necessary skill-set to carry out certain tasks in relative silence.


In other words; the killer was trained to work rapidly and silently.


Sounds familiar

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think this quote sums it up for everyone? In the annals of serial murder what this maniac did was still rare. I've learned alot about Victoria's England and it is fascinating.

My own observations just raise more questions.

Was he local? I'm not sure why a non local would choose Whitechapel if he didn't know it and its habits. He was a high risk taker and seemed to know police habits and methods. I'm not sure how else you could explain his escapes as if he were a ghost.

Was he single or married ? This killer destroyed the humanity of these women. He hated them possibly because he was dominated by them in real life. It's not clear to me that he hated women just for hates sake. He had a reason. He exerted power over his victims. I believe in real life he was living under female domination.

Was he gentile, Immigrant Jew, or anglicized Jew? This raises the question for me of why a local gentile would kill local gentile women in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods? Then leave clues at Jewish dwellings and possibly use a Jewish slur in the case of Schwartz right next to the Center of the Jewish Immigrant Socialist movement. The killer was trying very hard in my opinion to keep drawing attention to the Jewish Immigrant Class that Law Enforcement was fixated and stayed fixated on. Why would the killer draw attention to what he himself was? This leaves gentile or anglicized Jew as the likely killer IMO.

Appearance- the killer was ordinary in appearance. He looked like every other man of that time living in the poorer sections of London. If Shabby Genteel is to be believed than its possible he had more than one set of garments. The Rag Trade was centralized on Wentworth and Middlesex Streets so availability was not an issue for a local. Who would want to keep up appearances on a regular basis? A known business owner?
if George Hutchinson is to be believed then it's possible the killer dressed in his very best for the sole purpose of attracting Mary Kelly with " appearance of money". A red handkerchief if you please? Mary Kelly was a human carcass in the end.

Anatomical Knowledge- was Mary Tabrum a probing of a human? 39 stab wounds, overkill, in the areas that would become the mutilation focus of the killer. Human skin v Animal skin? He had to start somewhere? What kind of knife would I need? If the Author Patricia Cornwell is to be believed this killer just Ripped and pulled out organs. Yet Mary Kelly's mutilation indicates that this killer was using his time to explore the entire body. Including trying to remove skin ?The Doctors in this case were conflicted on the degree of knowledge but is it possible that their own training played a role here? They did not believe it was a medical man, maybe a medical student, possibly a slaughterman or butcher? They were definitely struggling to understand the Act of these murders. What might be of more interest is the cutting of throats and timing associated with the murders. Less than 10 minutes. With the exception of organs removal, Cornwall isn't far off the mark.

Physical Strength- this killer overpowered these women in almost total silence. Did he strangle them unconscious, lay them down, cut their throats and bleed them out? It appears so. These women were not healthy and none seemed to fight back. Is this why they were chosen? Weakness in strength? Would this require some forknowledge of how to render someone unconcious? Or just brute strength? The killer was successful in every case. This killer required some upper body strength to effect this if he did not use a garrot. There appears to be no proof he did. Did he then use a forearm? A person can be rendered unconscious in less than 10 seconds.

After 137 years many questions remain unanswered including the most important one..Who. what questions, if any, still need to be asked? Is the only real evidence the medical evidence? If so it would exist in Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Does it tell us anything?

Sorry I’m late responding Patrick. So many questions as you’ve pointed out. Hutchinson is a good example. I’ve always wondered if he subconsciously exaggerated Kelly’s man’s level of ‘finery.’ If he was dressed better than Hutchinson, which seems likely, he might have looked like a toff but maybe he was just a local businessman who was better off than most? His watch for example, on closer examination, might have been a battered old thing that had been handed down by his great-grandfather. His astrakhan coat, seen in broad daylight, might have been shown to have seen much better days.

I just think that there’s very little that we can say that we know with anything like a near certainly. ‘Possibles’ yes, ‘probables’ yes, but near certainties… I’d stick with ‘he was a man.’

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis, anatomy and butchery knowledge were much more common in the 19th century than today (I remember a story about my Great Grandfather being told to go kill a chicken just after the war, he got bored of chasing and just swung the knife to good effect). My personal feeling would be a butcher would have the knife skills needed, a cotton merchant not likely. I have considered and even questioned the sleeping MJK scenario on these boards and wouldn’t rule out. However, as you said he’d observed others gaining entry - is that not local knowledge? The skill demonstrated for me was in the rapidity and silence of the killing, not necessarily the mutilation. For the killer I’d have thought the mutilation was the “fun part” that he wanted to enjoy, but until MJK he had to be willing to disappear on the smallest noise.

Paul

I agree, the theory that the Ripper may have observed others accessing Kelly's room by reaching through the window does imply that he probably spent a lot of time in the area and knew it well.

[The Rookie Detective]

I agree, the theory that the Ripper may have observed others accessing Kelly's room by reaching through the window does imply that he probably spent a lot of time in the area and knew it well.

As I've mentioned previously, Henry Hanslope at one time lived in the room directly opposite Mary's room; namely room 11.

Hanslope raped his daughter, violently assaulted his mother and threatened to cut his wife's throat. He also had a penchant for walking around and pretending to be a police detective and had acting experience as a young man. He was 40 at the time of the murders and claimed to work as a market porter,; the same occupation given by the man who was stopped by police as he tried to leave Miller's Court on his way to get some milk. This man was never identified but said he was staying in room 3.

Was this Hanslope?

If it was, then he's arguably the prime suspect in the Kelly murder because we know he stayed in room 11 at some point in 1888.

He was violent, a compulsive liar, liked to walk around in disguise, and was sexually deviant and abusive towards his own 13 year old daughter.

Anyone who stayed in room 11 would have had a clear view of Kelly's window.

[Lewis C]

As I've mentioned previously, Henry Hanslope at one time lived in the room directly opposite Mary's room; namely room 11.

Hanslope raped his daughter, violently assaulted his mother and threatened to cut his wife's throat. He also had a penchant for walking around and pretending to be a police detective and had acting experience as a young man. He was 40 at the time of the murders and claimed to work as a market porter,; the same occupation given by the man who was stopped by police as he tried to leave Miller's Court on his way to get some milk. This man was never identified but said he was staying in room 3.

Was this Hanslope?

If it was, then he's arguably the prime suspect in the Kelly murder because we know he stayed in room 11 at some point in 1888.

He was violent, a compulsive liar, liked to walk around in disguise, and was sexually deviant and abusive towards his own 13 year old daughter.

Anyone who stayed in room 11 would have had a clear view of Kelly's window.

Hanslope might be a reasonable suspect anyway, but I don't know if the police stopping him would mean that much. That would have been long after the murder occurred, wouldn't it?

[The Rookie Detective]

Hanslope might be a reasonable suspect anyway, but I don't know if the police stopping him would mean that much. That would have been long after the murder occurred, wouldn't it?

The police stopped a man who left the court on the morning after the murder.

Apparently, he told them he was residing in room 3 and was a market porter on the way to get some milk.

They let him on his way and despite it being reported, his name never appeared in the press.

The late Mr Chris Scott discovered some documentation that proved that a man named Henry Hanslope had lived in room 11 Miller's Court aged 40.

At the time of the murder Hanslope was 40.

On occasion Hanslope told others that he was a market porter.

Debra Arif had done some extensive research on him and her work is the reason why I was drawn to Hanslope in the first place.

It is my belief that the market porter who left the court that morning; and who was not named in the press, was possibly Henry Hanslope.

Henry was an actor and there is evidence he had performed in a theatre/s before he came to London.

He was apprehended at one point for trying to get into a music hall under the guise of being a plain-clothed detective.


This is another element of Hanslope that I feel may be of significance; pretending to be a police detective is a perfect cover for a man like the Ripper who would have needed a way for his victims to trust they could be alone with him.

The biggest negative with Hanslope is that there is also evidence that he went in and out of the workhouse. IIRC he was listed as being an inmate in the workhouse during at least one of the earlier Ripper murders.

Now if being in the workhouse meant he couldn't leave, then he couldn't have been the man who killed the earlier Ripper victims. However, if he was able to come and go from the workhouse, then he may have been out when the other murders happened.

Now there's no evidence to support WHO was residing in room 11 at the time of the murder, but as far as I'm aware, the room WAS occupied.

Based on the fact that neither the resident of room 11 or room 3 were ever named in the press, it still leaves scope for Hanslope to have been in room 11 at the time of the murder.

There's no evidence that Hanslope was a resident in Millers Court on that specific date, but there IS proof that at some point when he was aged 40, he was staying in room 11 Millers Court.

Hanslope was 40 when Kelly was murdered.


Was he the killer?


His profile fits the Ripper very well IMO.

The fact he liked changing his appearance and impersonating a detective, combined with the fact he (allegedly) raped his own 13 year old daughter, severely beat his mother, and threatened to cut his wife's throat... plus him being a resident of the room opposite Kelly's (at some point) and the market porter/porter reference for the man who was stopped by police very shortly after Kelly was murdered...all adds up to something very fascinating.

Henry Hanslope IMO should be considered a very suspicious person of interest.

If it can be proven that he was in room 11 at the time of the murder...then for me, he was the killer.


He had a perfect view of Kelly's window, and would have known of the broken window.

What I am suggesting is that her killer may not have left Miller's Court, and instead just left Kelly's room, walked 5 yards to his room opposite (room 11) went in, cleaned up, and then went to bed.

What's the one place that you'd least expect to find Kelly's killer?






Next door.


Fascinating indeed.

[Mark J D]

He ... would have known of the broken window.

Why can't I see any trace of a broken window pane in that famous police photograph of No.13's exterior?

Genuine question.

Mark D.

[rjpalmer]

Why can't I see any trace of a broken window pane in that famous police photograph of No.13's exterior?

Genuine question.

Mark D.

That's due to poor reproductions with low resolution.

Click on the link below from Stewart Evans and look closely at the top pane on the right. You'll be able to see a gaping hole.

Room 13 Miller's Court - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

[C. F. Leon]

...

What's the one place that you'd least expect to find Kelly's killer?

...

Hell, I'll give you THREE: "At the bottom of the Thames", (living at) Buckingham Palace & through the Looking Glass.

[scottnapa]

Surely there’s no point in having any interest in the case if we don’t want to know who did it Sean?

There are no bullet proof suspects. Then as now. Macnaghten could not do better than Druitt, Ostrog and Kosminski. "Who did it" questions are burdened with theories, relying on hunches and coincidence more than facts. (Letchmere.). There is plenty of mystery in the case. we are evidence of that.

[FrankO]

Local > I’ve always been a little wary of assuming the level of benefit from local knowledge but I certainly wouldn’t dispute that he was a local man. Paul’s point about Kelly is a fair one but the killer might have been a non-local who looked a bit better off. Or the way that he spoke might have won her trust. It’s perhaps also worth pointing out that she was in arrears with her rent and we have to wonder he far McCarthy’s patience stretched? Serial killers don’t usually kill ‘on their own doorsteps’ though.

So I certainly wouldn’t dismiss a local man but it’s fair to say that I don’t place as much weight on it as (probably) most do.

Hi Mike,

Here's my two cents on it being a local rather than a non-local.

The fact that the murders were committed in a relatively short period and under very risky circumstances, to me, suggest a rather compulsive killer, a killer who was more anxious about getting his fix than minimizing the risk of being caught as much as he could. If he really wanted to, he could have found another victim or two like Kelly or he, perhaps, could have found safer places to lure his victims to to commit his crimes, but the way I see it, that was too much trouble for him. While it is possible, of course, I don’t believe the Ripper killed outdoors because he preferred to in the sense that he wanted to shock the public. That may very well have been a by-product that he grew more and more 'fond of' with every new murder, but I don’t think it would have been on his mind when he started. But whatever the case, a local man would still seem more probable than a non-local, as a local man would know better how to get away safely, would be home (or in a safe place) quicker than a non-local and wouldn’t stick out as a stranger/strange face while a non-local certainly might have.

In short, I’d opt for a local man rather than a stranger, certainly a stranger from a clearly different part of London. I’d actually find a stranger rather contrived. Why would such a person only go to Whitechapel/Spitalfields to murder women, as if that were the only part of London where to find street prostitutes?

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Mike,

Here's my two cents on it being a local rather than a non-local.

The fact that the murders were committed in a relatively short period and under very risky circumstances, to me, suggest a rather compulsive killer, a killer who was more anxious about getting his fix than minimizing the risk of being caught as much as he could. If he really wanted to, he could have found another victim or two like Kelly or he, perhaps, could have found safer places to lure his victims to to commit his crimes, but the way I see it, that was too much trouble for him. While it is possible, of course, I don’t believe the Ripper killed outdoors because he preferred to in the sense that he wanted to shock the public. That may very well have been a by-product that he grew more and more 'fond of' with every new murder, but I don’t think it would have been on his mind when he started. But whatever the case, a local man would still seem more probable than a non-local, as a local man would know better how to get away safely, would be home (or in a safe place) quicker than a non-local and wouldn’t stick out as a stranger/strange face while a non-local certainly might have.

In short, I’d opt for a local man rather than a stranger, certainly a stranger from a clearly different part of London. I’d actually find a stranger rather contrived. Why would such a person only go to Whitechapel/Spitalfields to murder women, as if that were the only part of London where to find street prostitutes?

Cheers,
Frank

Hello Frank,

You could well be right on this but I do sometimes tend to look at that small 'kill zone' and think "how likely would it be for a serial killer who lived in a village to repeatedly kill in that village?" Accepted of course that the area in question wasn't an isolated village we nevertheless would still have him operating in a small area where numerous people (how many - a hundred, two hundred? I can't guess) would have not just have recognised his face but they would also have been able to name him had he been seen near the murder locations. It does seem an unnecessary risk to me but then again I'm not a serial killer...honest

Basically I don't know is the answer. I certainly accept that he could have been a local and that it might be likeliest that he was but I wouldn't put it as strongly as some suggest. I certainly don't think that he came from Holland though.

[FrankO]

Hello Frank,

You could well be right on this but I do sometimes tend to look at that small 'kill zone' and think "how likely would it be for a serial killer who lived in a village to repeatedly kill in that village?" Accepted of course that the area in question wasn't an isolated village we nevertheless would still have him operating in a small area where numerous people (how many - a hundred, two hundred? I can't guess) would have not just have recognised his face but they would also have been able to name him had he been seen near the murder locations. It does seem an unnecessary risk to me but then again I'm not a serial killer...honest

Basically I don't know is the answer. I certainly accept that he could have been a local and that it might be likeliest that he was but I wouldn't put it as strongly as some suggest. I certainly don't think that he came from Holland though.

Your guess is as good as mine, Mike, because that's basically what it boils down to what we do here. In that sense you're completely right: the only thing we can be fairly sure of is that he was male. I do agree that the Ripper probably didn't come from Holland (at least, he wasn't Vincent van Gogh), although I vaguely remember that there were quite a bit of Dutch people living in the East End and, if I remember correctly, especially in the area between White's Row and Wentworth Street (Tenter Street, Butler Street and such).

Cheers,
Frank

[Abby Normal]

Hi Mike,

Here's my two cents on it being a local rather than a non-local.

The fact that the murders were committed in a relatively short period and under very risky circumstances, to me, suggest a rather compulsive killer, a killer who was more anxious about getting his fix than minimizing the risk of being caught as much as he could. If he really wanted to, he could have found another victim or two like Kelly or he, perhaps, could have found safer places to lure his victims to to commit his crimes, but the way I see it, that was too much trouble for him. While it is possible, of course, I don’t believe the Ripper killed outdoors because he preferred to in the sense that he wanted to shock the public. That may very well have been a by-product that he grew more and more 'fond of' with every new murder, but I don’t think it would have been on his mind when he started. But whatever the case, a local man would still seem more probable than a non-local, as a local man would know better how to get away safely, would be home (or in a safe place) quicker than a non-local and wouldn’t stick out as a stranger/strange face while a non-local certainly might have.

In short, I’d opt for a local man rather than a stranger, certainly a stranger from a clearly different part of London. I’d actually find a stranger rather contrived. Why would such a person only go to Whitechapel/Spitalfields to murder women, as if that were the only part of London where to find street prostitutes?

Cheers,
Frank

agree. the killer knew those streets like the back of his hand. which points to a local.