What evidence would it take?

[jerryd]

This is all rather fanciful.

It's not new stuff, John. In most of the press reports tallying up the murders as they happened, the list started with either Fairy Fay or Emma Smith. The Fairy Fay murder was supposedly in December of 1887, which coincidentally is 8 months prior to August of 1888. What's your take on the following article from 1891?

[Aethelwulf]

It's not new stuff, John. In most of the press reports tallying up the murders as they happened, the list started with either Fairy Fay or Emma Smith. The Fairy Fay murder was supposedly in December of 1887, which coincidentally is 8 months prior to August of 1888. What's your take on the following article from 1891?

Intersting, shame there aren't more details. Also, October 1887 is the first record of Bury being in East End working for James Martin, although no one actually knows when he arrived.

[Wickerman]

...

The pavement beneath the body of Alice McKenzie was still dry, placing her death sometime after 12:25 A.M. and before 12:45 A.M.

I feel sure McKenzie was not a Ripper victim either, but with respect to the wet pavement. Even though a dead body loses heat, the body & the clothing will dry the pavement. A dead body still retains heat for a time & the clothing absorbs water. Also, we don't know how intense the rain was - coming down in buckets or just drizzle?
It's a tenuous detail to hang a time of death on.

[Aethelwulf]

This is all rather fanciful.

I can see why some want to include McKenzie but as you say, I have issues accepting her as a genuine victim. First, and probably not a very good reason, something just doesn't seem to fit. No murders for the best part of a year then some superficial cuts and fingernail scratches and he goes away for good. This only works if you come up with all those of mitigating circumstances that just don't sound too convincing.

More interestingly, if you compare the injuries of Ellen Bury to McKenzie they are altogether more serious and reminiscent of the ripper. A long cut from near the sternum to near the navel, puncturing though the muscles at the end, and a similar cut parallel to it. Below this and down from the navel a deeper cut which as described in the medical report opened the abdomen, and a range of other cuts running obliquely down. Some of the victims do appear to have two main wounds (Eddowes and suggested for Nicholls) simialr to Ellen. Most significantly the wounds to her genitals and around her back passage are far more severe than anything described for McKenzie and very closely match those described on Eddowes. If nothing else they confirm Bury as a sexually motivated mutilator, which is after all, what we are looking for. He also cut into both groins and made a small cut running diagonally down from the bridge of the nose.

Obviously in this case there are some mitigating circumstances that could explain the de-escalation: different place, someone he'd been married to for a year, potentially unplanned. You could argue that means he would have gone further, but equally it may mean the opposite and it wouldn't be a safe bet for ruling him out. Most important I think, unlike in Whitechapel, there was no option of walking away without being the only suspect. If Bury had just been copying he would surely have copied the one thing the ripper was known for (throat cutting) but he did do what some believe were the preliminary moves (head blow and strangulation).

You could say McKenzie being in the heart of ripper country over rides Bury, but I think that argument is meaningless when you consider that Bury was known to be in the east end and kept away from his lodgings on the night of the Chapman murder, double event and Kelly murder, and in three cases was thought to be a good match to the witness descriptions. It is said he 'was in the habit of carrying that knife about' and the police suspected him. He fits very closely the profile of the ripper.

In the end you can take your pick, but on injuries alone, I think it's more likely Ellen Bury was the final victim. Add in the other circumstantial evidence and I think it is a strong case. Based on Bury's methods and the near identical strangulation injuries Ellen suffered, I think Bury is a very strong suspect in the Mylett case.

Also, I just don't see the torsos as relevant. I can see why McKenzie, but not the torsos.

[Aethelwulf]

I feel sure McKenzie was not a Ripper victim either, but with respect to the wet pavement. Even though a dead body loses heat, the body & the clothing will dry the pavement. A dead body still retains heat for a time & the clothing absorbs water. Also, we don't know how intense the rain was - coming down in buckets or just drizzle?
It's a tenuous detail to hang a time of death on.

Well yes agreed but unless the PC missed the body the first time he was in the alley it agrees.

12:50 A.M.: Andrews returns to Castle Alley on his regular beat, about twenty-seven minutes having passed since he left the area. This time, however, he discovers the body of a woman lying on the pavement

[John Wheat]

It's not new stuff, John. In most of the press reports tallying up the murders as they happened, the list started with either Fairy Fay or Emma Smith. The Fairy Fay murder was supposedly in December of 1887, which coincidentally is 8 months prior to August of 1888. What's your take on the following article from 1891?

I don't dismiss these earlier murders although I'm not sure Fairy Fay even existed. I read somewhere that the Police could not trace her.

[jerryd]

Well yes agreed but unless the PC missed the body the first time he was in the alley it agrees.

12:50 A.M.: Andrews returns to Castle Alley on his regular beat, about twenty-seven minutes having passed since he left the area. This time, however, he discovers the body of a woman lying on the pavement

Hi Aethelwulf.

How many times is PC Walter Andrews in Castle Alley according to the following version of the inquest? And by the way, Edmund Reid stated that the alley was hardly left alone for 5 minutes. PC Allen and PC Andrews split the beat that night to increase patrols through the alley.

Lloyd's Newspaper July 21,1889

Had you been in the alley before?-Yes, between 20 and 25 past twelve. This was before I found the body. As Police-Constable Allen went out, I went in, and was there between two and three minutes. Nobody was there then. After leaving the alley I went half-way to Goulston Street, and then down the other side, returning into Old Castle Street and through into Castle Alley. At 25 past 12 I passed from the alley into Newcastle Street, up one side of the High Street Whitechapel and into Goulston Street and then down the other side returning into Old Castle Street and through into Castle Alley. At 25 past 12 I passed from the alley into Newcastle Street, up one side of the High Street, Whitechapel and into Goulston Street returning into Whitechapel High Street. Then I went into Middlesex Street, into Wentworth Street again, when I saw Sergeant Badham, as I stated at the commencement of my evidence. This would have taken 27 minutes.

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Aethelwulf.

How many times is PC Walter Andrews in Castle Alley according to the following version of the inquest? And by the way, Edmund Reid stated that the alley was hardly left alone for 5 minutes. PC Allen and PC Andrews split the beat that night to increase patrols through the alley.

Lloyd's Newspaper July 21,1889

Had you been in the alley before?-Yes, between 20 and 25 past twelve. This was before I found the body. As Police-Constable Allen went out, I went in, and was there between two and three minutes. Nobody was there then. After leaving the alley I went half-way to Goulston Street, and then down the other side, returning into Old Castle Street and through into Castle Alley. At 25 past 12 I passed from the alley into Newcastle Street, up one side of the High Street Whitechapel and into Goulston Street and then down the other side returning into Old Castle Street and through into Castle Alley. At 25 past 12 I passed from the alley into Newcastle Street, up one side of the High Street, Whitechapel and into Goulston Street returning into Whitechapel High Street. Then I went into Middlesex Street, into Wentworth Street again, when I saw Sergeant Badham, as I stated at the commencement of my evidence. This would have taken 27 minutes.

Hi Jerry,

It's not very clear how much time was spent there apart from the first ref to two or three minutes. The other references seem to indicate he was just passing through. assuming he stopped to shine his lantern about each time, he may only have been there an extra minute or so in total. Wasn't it remarked that for Eddowes the injuores could have been done in a few minutes? He must have had at least that here I think and it doesn't square that he had a sharp enough knife to cut her throat twice and then make a few small cuts and scracthes. It would have taken a second to turn one of those scrtches into a stab with his knife. The fact that the killer managed the one thing the ripper was known to do (cut throat) but not make any serious wounds to the lower body sounds more like a copycat, if there was one, to me.

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry,

It's not very clear how much time was spent there apart from the first ref to two or three minutes. The other references seem to indicate he was just passing through. assuming he stopped to shine his lantern about each time, he may only have been there an extra minute or so in total. Wasn't it remarked that for Eddowes the injuores could have been done in a few minutes? He must have had at least that here I think and it doesn't square that he had a sharp enough knife to cut her throat twice and then make a few small cuts and scracthes. It would have taken a second to turn one of those scrtches into a stab with his knife. The fact that the killer managed the one thing the ripper was known to do (cut throat) but not make any serious wounds to the lower body sounds more like a copycat, if there was one, to me.

Thanks Aethelwulf.

According to the clip I posted, he went into Castle Alley 3 times. Very different from the Times report.

What's your view on this?:

[Aethelwulf]

Thanks Aethelwulf.

According to the clip I posted, he went into Castle Alley 3 times. Very different from the Times report.

What's your view on this?:

Still, based on what was done to Eddowes in a supposed short amount of time, I'm not convinced it is a good enough mitigation to say it was the ripper IMO.

Do you have any thoughts on the supposed Dec '87 murder? I saw one report that states the woman had an iron stake rammed through her abdomen.

[jason_c]

Very unlikely the case will ever get solved to any degree of consensus but the closest I can think of are if some of the lost police suspect files ever turn up(unlikely, I know). A bit of meat on the bones of a contemporary suspect or two would be put the cat amongst the ripperology pigeons. Some dusty paperwork listing a blood stained knife found in Druitt's lodgings, or the paperwork for the seaside home identification. These could be persuasive for some.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Very unlikely the case will ever get solved to any degree of consensus but the closest I can think of are if some of the lost police suspect files ever turn up(unlikely, I know). A bit of meat on the bones of a contemporary suspect or two would be put the cat amongst the ripperology pigeons. Some dusty paperwork listing a blood stained knife found in Druitt's lodgings, or the paperwork for the seaside home identification. These could be persuasive for some.

If a bloodstained knife had been found in Druitt's lodgings, Abberline would have known about it and not have said of Druitt: 'there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him.'

If there had been paperwork relating to the alleged seaside identification, Macnaghten would have read it and not recorded that he was 'inclined to exonerate' Kosminski.

[jason_c]

If a bloodstained knife had been found in Druitt's lodgings, Abberline would have known about it and not have said of Druitt: 'there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him.'

If there had been paperwork relating to the alleged seaside identification, Macnaghten would have read it and not recorded that he was 'inclined to exonerate' Kosminski.

MM had a notoriously good memory, or believed himself to have a good memory. I wouldn't be surprised if MM wrote the memo without looking at the files beforehand. It's perhaps the best explanation I can give for the memo being such a sloppy job. My comment on Druitt was a bit more flippant. It was merely an example of the type of evidence that could have been in the files.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

MM had a notoriously good memory, or believed himself to have a good memory. I wouldn't be surprised if MM wrote the memo without looking at the files beforehand. It's perhaps the best explanation I can give for the memo being such a sloppy job. My comment on Druitt was a bit more flippant. It was merely an example of the type of evidence that could have been in the files.

Maybe there was nothing in the files about Druitt and THAT is why Macnaghten did such a sloppy job.

He mentioned sexual insanity - hardly likely to have been mentioned in the files - and private information, which could not have come from the files.

As for his comments on Kosminski, if there had been anything more substantial than circumstantial evidence in the files, why would Macnaghten not have made use of it?

Maybe he did look at the files in between writing the two memoranda and that is why he made an alteration in favour of Kosminski.

[jason_c]

Maybe there was nothing in the files about Druitt and THAT is why Macnaghten did such a sloppy job.

He mentioned sexual insanity - hardly likely to have been mentioned in the files - and private information, which could not have come from the files.

As for his comments on Kosminski, if there had been anything more substantial than circumstantial evidence in the files, why would Macnaghten not have made use of it?

Maybe he did look at the files in between writing the two memoranda and that is why he made an alteration in favour of Kosminski.

Again, not sure why you keep mentioning Druitt. I said my comment about him was flippant, as an example of some no doubt very juicy info in the suspect files on any any number of suspects. You may be correct about the Kosminski file. Yet I'm going to assume the authorities were semi competent at their jobs and that they recorded relevant info in the files. Why didn't MM make use of such info? This was a private memo made for a political reason. We know MM didn't go into details on the private info on he had on Druitt in the memo. He wasn't trying to convict anyone in the memo, nor persuade the memo's recipient as to anyone's guilt.