Summing Up And Verdict

[kjab3112]

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.

I would though point out one glaring reason why not. Although raping his own teenaged daughter would make him a nasty piece of work, the Ripper did not participate in any sexual activity that could be determined at the time (and they looked), added the victims were mature women, as opposed to the teens to be expected from such an individual. Yes, sex offenders can be interested in all age groups, but an incestuous paedophile would surely have some younger victims than a twenty something?

Paul

[The Rookie Detective]

I would though point out one glaring reason why not. Although raping his own teenaged daughter would make him a nasty piece of work, the Ripper did not participate in any sexual activity that could be determined at the time (and they looked), added the victims were mature women, as opposed to the teens to be expected from such an individual. Yes, sex offenders can be interested in all age groups, but an incestuous paedophile would surely have some younger victims than a twenty something?

Paul

It's the fact he chose his daughter, mother and wife to be abusive to.
The 3 females who would (or should) have been the most important in his life.
If he could that to his family, imagine what he could do to a stranger with zero emotional attachment.

I believe that the sexual element is often overlooked and it's important to differentiate between sexual action and action driving by a sexual need.
Sex isn't just about the act of sex, but the desire to control and dominate; ergo, to have power over another.

The action of strangling the victim and managing to cause her to pass out and be brought down quietly onto the floor; so as to facilitate cutting and mutilation, was driven fundamentally by his need to exert power and control his victim. That in itself has connotations of a sexually motivated attack.

The killer then deliberately positions his victims in a manner that suggests submissive behavior on the part of the female.
In other words, the way he leaves Kelly, Eddowes, Chapman, Nichols, Mckenzie and Tabram is a deliberate demonstration of the power he had over them in their final moments and after their death.
The only anomaly being Stride, who is placed in a fetal position on her side.
That either shows the killer didn't have time to complete and was disturbed, or wasn't the Ripper.

But there is a 3rd option.


If Stride was a Ripper victim, then the killer may have had a more personal connection to her.
One singular clean cut, no mutilation and no display of sexual dominance.
Was Stride a reluctant kill?
Or is there another reason why he left her positioned differently to all the others?
Perhaps the words she said to the man seen talking to her in Fairclough St, offers us a potential clue.

"No not tonight, some other night."

What could be a potential reason for Stride having said that?

Well, when we look at the fact that the Ripper targeted the Uterus and female reproductive organs, combined with the indication that he was exploring and experimenting as he was cutting and mutilating, it made me wonder if the Ripper was trying to see... if his victim was pregnant?

Was Stride menstruating at the time she was murdered and was this the reason why she dismissed the man in Fairclough Street; and subsequently why the killer didn't feel the desire or need to cut her open?

(Stride wasn't dressed in a manner to suggest she was soliciting that night and there's no evidence she was touting for business. She also didn't need money for a room that night either)

And does that then offer another tantalising possibility regarding the way he treated Kelly?

Did the Ripper discover Kelly was pregnant?

And because of this he chose to complete obliterate her?

Was the Ripper angry at the way a woman used her body to make money and then conceive seemingly without a care in the world? (from his perspective)

Does that then explain why he targeted a certain demographic of women?

Did the Ripper choose to not cut Stride open because he knew she couldnt be pregnant and therefore had no urge to cut her open and explore her innards to play with her uterus?

It's a hypothesis I've had for a while now and I think it may have some traction despite the awkward subject matter.

[Abby Normal]

It's the fact he chose his daughter, mother and wife to be abusive to.
The 3 females who would (or should) have been the most important in his life.
If he could that to his family, imagine what he could do to a stranger with zero emotional attachment.

I believe that the sexual element is often overlooked and it's important to differentiate between sexual action and action driving by a sexual need.
Sex isn't just about the act of sex, but the desire to control and dominate; ergo, to have power over another.

The action of strangling the victim and managing to cause her to pass out and be brought down quietly onto the floor; so as to facilitate cutting and mutilation, was driven fundamentally by his need to exert power and control his victim. That in itself has connotations of a sexually motivated attack.

The killer then deliberately positions his victims in a manner that suggests submissive behavior on the part of the female.
In other words, the way he leaves Kelly, Eddowes, Chapman, Nichols, Mckenzie and Tabram is a deliberate demonstration of the power he had over them in their final moments and after their death.
The only anomaly being Stride, who is placed in a fetal position on her side.
That either shows the killer didn't have time to complete and was disturbed, or wasn't the Ripper.

But there is a 3rd option.


If Stride was a Ripper victim, then the killer may have had a more personal connection to her.
One singular clean cut, no mutilation and no display of sexual dominance.
Was Stride a reluctant kill?
Or is there another reason why he left her positioned differently to all the others?
Perhaps the words she said to the man seen talking to her in Fairclough St, offers us a potential clue.

"No not tonight, some other night."

What could be a potential reason for Stride having said that?

Well, when we look at the fact that the Ripper targeted the Uterus and female reproductive organs, combined with the indication that he was exploring and experimenting as he was cutting and mutilating, it made me wonder if the Ripper was trying to see... if his victim was pregnant?

Was Stride menstruating at the time she was murdered and was this the reason why she dismissed the man in Fairclough Street; and subsequently why the killer didn't feel the desire or need to cut her open?

(Stride wasn't dressed in a manner to suggest she was soliciting that night and there's no evidence she was touting for business. She also didn't need money for a room that night either)

And does that then offer another tantalising possibility regarding the way he treated Kelly?

Did the Ripper discover Kelly was pregnant?

And because of this he chose to complete obliterate her?

Was the Ripper angry at the way a woman used her body to make money and then conceive seemingly without a care in the world? (from his perspective)

Does that then explain why he targeted a certain demographic of women?

Did the Ripper choose to not cut Stride open because he knew she couldnt be pregnant and therefore had no urge to cut her open and explore her innards to play with her uterus?

It's a hypothesis I've had for a while now and I think it may have some traction despite the awkward subject matter.

hi rd
my theory why stride wasnt on her back displayed and exposed but in the fetal position is because the ripper didnt render her unconscious before he cut her throat. she was still alive after he cut her throat. He bolted right after and she was trying to make her way toward the voices and percieved help at the club when she expired.

[New Waterloo]

I think Abby makes a very valid point suggesting some movement by Stride after her throat was cut. I think there is some evidence of movement as it was mentioned that her hair was matted with mud one side of the head. I have suggested that the word matted indicates pushed into or plastered into the hair not just through touching mud but a movement involved to push the mud in. I wonder if she was dragged a very short distance or she moved herself.

NW

[c.d.]

Movement? Maybe, but no blood trail and if crawling on hands and knees the cachous (just wrapped in tissue) remained intact. So seems unlikely.

c.d.

[New Waterloo]

Hello cd. I agree crawling on hands and knees very unlikely. I think movement of some sorts very likely. Lets assume the victims once strangled/choked or throats cut were unable to move themselves the killer would need to move the victims into a desired position for him to do his work. Shall we say some positioning of the body. They are unlikely to fall exactly as he wants them and I would imagine its not easy to position a body and some dragging or turning over would have taken place. Maybe any dragging would be mere inches (or more). This is one of the things that makes the case so interesting. If the victim for instance ended face down after having their throat cut it would take some doing to not get blood all over the place. If the killer was able to pre determine the rough position of the body as it reached the ground that takes some considerable skill. Bearing in mind most people would resist strongly. I have only just thought of this but this is not the work of a physically weaker person.
The evidence is there we all just have to look deeper. The problem is I am discounting my own theories as I go along
NW

[FrankO]

Movement? Maybe, but no blood trail and if crawling on hands and knees the cachous (just wrapped in tissue) remained intact. So seems unlikely.

c.d.

I agree with you, c.d.. The evidence we have tells us that it was a quick affair in the sense that she ended up lying on her left side and stayed that way. There was mud mostly on her left side, little on her right side and none mentioned on her back. Your point about the cachous further supports this view. So, if she did move after receiving the cut to her throat, it's likely to have been very little.

[FrankO]

hi rd
my theory why stride wasnt on her back displayed and exposed but in the fetal position is because the ripper didnt render her unconscious before he cut her throat. she was still alive after he cut her throat. He bolted right after and she was trying to make her way toward the voices and percieved help at the club when she expired.

I agree with the first part of what you write, Abby. Quite possibly he pulled her backwards by her scarf and then cut her throat without first rendering her unconscious. I also agree with you that he left as soon as he'd cut her throat. There's also every chance that she didn't die immediately, but I don't think she moved much after that.