Does anything rule Bury out?

[John Wheat]

Out of curiosity, who would be ahead of Bury?

I'd like to know why people put other suspect's ahead of Bury?

[Elamarna]

Hi el
Other than koz, why other polish Jews?

Hi Abby

Because WE do not have a first name for Koz, Anderson says polish jew, MM and Swanson just say Koz. Sagar and Cox appear to be following a suspect, in an area of Jewish shops, but no name is given.
From reading sources it is obvious that at this time, surnames were being changed, in AK's own family.
There are other interesting Jewish suspects: Levy well worth a look, Cohen- Fido's original suspect, violent and certainly fits many requirements. And as we don't have first name there were more than on koz family in the area.

hope that explains my reasoning

Steve

[John G]

I would probably rate Francis Thompson broadly equal with Bury, but then I sometimes like to be controversial!

Of course, the strongest argument in favour of Bury is that, arguably, he committed a Ripper-style murder. However, the same could be said for whoever killed Alice McKenzie, and she definitely wasn't murdered by Bury as he'd been hung 2 months earlier.

[Elamarna]

I'd like to know why people put other suspect's ahead of Bury?

Hi John

That is reasonable simple to explain:

While there is a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence, which does suggest similarities between the Whitechapel killer and Bury, there is in my Opinion nothing which is compelling enough to take the evidence to a higher level than that.

Using the historical sources from the time, it seems clear that a number of senior police officers had a view that does not seem to point at Bury.
And yes, there are mistakes in those reports/comments, and many refuse to accept anything that Anderson says, unfairly in my view.
Additionally there are the reports of Sagar and Cox, which appear, to back some of what Swanson says, that is the suspect is watched day and night.

The Reports/comments of MM, Anderson and Swanson are however primary sources and, while we may not like or personally believe the comments of those Officers in their entirety, to completely ignore those sources, is in my humble opinion poor and bias research.

Bury is a good/strong candidate, some like yourself appear to consider him the best, if not only one; there are some who do not consider him at all, wrongly in my opinion!

And others like myself, see that he is viable, and good suspect, BUT do not believe the Evidence is overwhelming.

hope that explains why.

regards


Steve

[Elamarna]

I would probably rate Francis Thompson broadly equal with Bury, but then I sometimes like to be controversial!

Of course, the strongest argument in favour of Bury is that, arguably, he committed a Ripper-style murder. However, the same could be said for whoever killed Alice McKenzie, and she definitely wasn't murdered by Bury as he'd been hung 2 months earlier.

John,

Thompson is certainly an interesting character John, however having just finished the book on him, I have to say the case is entirely circumstantial and somewhat less so than Bury.

The point about Mackenzie is very valid.

steve

[Abby Normal]

I would probably rate Francis Thompson broadly equal with Bury, but then I sometimes like to be controversial!

Of course, the strongest argument in favour of Bury is that, arguably, he committed a Ripper-style murder. However, the same could be said for whoever killed Alice McKenzie, and she definitely wasn't murdered by Bury as he'd been hung 2 months earlier.

don't agree with you on FT but certainly about Mckenzie, as I believe she was probably a ripper victim

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

Because WE do not have a first name for Koz, Anderson says polish jew, MM and Swanson just say Koz. Sagar and Cox appear to be following a suspect, in an area of Jewish shops, but no name is given.
From reading sources it is obvious that at this time, surnames were being changed, in AK's own family.
There are other interesting Jewish suspects: Levy well worth a look, Cohen- Fido's original suspect, violent and certainly fits many requirements. And as we don't have first name there were more than on koz family in the area.

hope that explains my reasoning

Steve

Thanks El
Koz was most certainly Aaron kosminsky and may have been the man they were following-but I'm not sure as he only comes up in the written record much later-after the ID.

The only other interesting jewish suspect IMHO is Jacob levy. And the only reason to give him any credence at all is because he MAY have been related to one of the Mitre square witnesses but even that is tenuous at best.

I don't give Fido's Cohen/kaminsky/kosminisky idea much possibility-its way too convoluted and speculative.

And the only reason Kosminisky stays on my list is that hes mentioned by three different police and is the ONLY candidate that has a shred of possible direct evidence against him-the ID. So I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, but the ID was probably no where near as positive as Anderson claims.

But the whole crazy/polish jew theory sticks in my craw, as I believe Andersons claim (which along with the ID and his apparent prejudice with jews)and Fidos subsequent theory have set off basically witch hunt for more jewish suspects.

Along with that and it appears most of the evidence and circumstances point away from a jewish suspect IMHO.

[Elamarna]

Abby

Going to disagree with you a little on a few points, and agree on others.

I would say that KOZ was most probably Aaron, but we cannot be 100% certain on that I think.

I do however agree that the ID, which I think probably did take place, was not as certain as suggested, but he did then know he had been seen and would be watched.
While it has been the given that the witness was from Mitre Square, or Berner Street; There has been a recent suggestion, that the witness could be someone unknown, who may have seen someone leaving Millers court in the early morning. but nothing has been proven on this.

While I too don't see Fido's theory for confusing names as being viable, it does not discount the possability that Cohen could have been the killer, he is certainly violent enough, and if Kelly is the last murder, that works too. Personally I still see much in favour of Mackenzie as the last.

We will have to disagree on Anderson, perceived anti-jewish sentiment, I feel that is more discussed than being real.

Now if the GSG is written by the killer , it appears to be something aimed at blaming the Jewish population, and therefore suggests the writer was not Jewish.
However you are aware I do not accept the GSG as being from the killer.

Having said that the apron is real, and there was a family of Kosminsky living in Gulston street, they appear not to be linked to Aaron, but could there be a link there to the Apron.

At the end of the day there is at present insufficient evidence to take any of the above further.

steve

Thanks El
Koz was most certainly Aaron kosminsky and may have been the man they were following-but I'm not sure as he only comes up in the written record much later-after the ID.

The only other interesting jewish suspect IMHO is Jacob levy. And the only reason to give him any credence at all is because he MAY have been related to one of the Mitre square witnesses but even that is tenuous at best.

I don't give Fido's Cohen/kaminsky/kosminisky idea much possibility-its way too convoluted and speculative.

And the only reason Kosminisky stays on my list is that hes mentioned by three different police and is the ONLY candidate that has a shred of possible direct evidence against him-the ID. So I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, but the ID was probably no where near as positive as Anderson claims.

But the whole crazy/polish jew theory sticks in my craw, as I believe Andersons claim (which along with the ID and his apparent prejudice with jews)and Fidos subsequent theory have set off basically witch hunt for more jewish suspects.

Along with that and it appears most of the evidence and circumstances point away from a jewish suspect IMHO.

[Abby Normal]

Abby

Going to disagree with you a little on a few points, and agree on others.

I would say that KOZ was most probably Aaron, but we cannot be 100% certain on that I think.

I do however agree that the ID, which I think probably did take place, was not as certain as suggested, but he did then know he had been seen and would be watched.
While it has been the given that the witness was from Mitre Square, or Berner Street; There has been a recent suggestion, that the witness could be someone unknown, who may have seen someone leaving Millers court in the early morning. but nothing has been proven on this.

While I too don't see Fido's theory for confusing names as being viable, it does not discount the possability that Cohen could have been the killer, he is certainly violent enough, and if Kelly is the last murder, that works too. Personally I still see much in favour of Mackenzie as the last.

We will have to disagree on Anderson, perceived anti-jewish sentiment, I feel that is more discussed than being real.

Now if the GSG is written by the killer , it appears to be something aimed at blaming the Jewish population, and therefore suggests the writer was not Jewish.
However you are aware I do not accept the GSG as being from the killer.

Having said that the apron is real, and there was a family of Kosminsky living in Gulston street, they appear not to be linked to Aaron, but could there be a link there to the Apron.

At the end of the day there is at present insufficient evidence to take any of the above further.

steve

Thanks EL

While it has been the given that the witness was from Mitre Square, or Berner Street; There has been a recent suggestion, that the witness could be someone unknown, who may have seen someone leaving Millers court in the early morning. but nothing has been proven on this.

whats all this about?
an unknown witness to kosminisky from Millers court?

[Harry D]

Personally, I've never been impressed by Druitt as a suspect. Macnaghten had his reasons for suspecting him, even if was partly based on the fallacious reasoning that the killer would've offed himself after such a gruesome murder, when modern research suggests otherwise. And since none of us know the inside info that he had on Druitt, we have at best an argument from ignorance. My question would be if the information was that compelling, why did Macnaghten lump Druitt together with a bunch of other suspects in the memorandum? Why not simply come out and say, "I know for a fact that Cutbush wasn't the Ripper because Druitt was... etc." instead of putting his suspect in the esteemed company of Kos, Ostrog & Tumblety?

However, it would be somewhat spurious to claim that serial killers only commit suicide after they've been apprehended. First of all, we don't know what would've happened had those killers not been caught when they were, and there are plenty of unsolved murder cases that are possibly unsolved because the perpetrator took his own life. Instead, I would add the qualification that serial killers rarely commit suicide BECAUSE of their murders. Macnaghten was influenced by his Victorian sensibilities and didn't have the luxury of years of criminal profiling when he declared that the killer would've been so appalled by his overindulgence that his mind would snap and he'd kill himself. Interestingly, although Macnaghten's conclusion was unsound, there was still some truth to his premise. Serial killers do wrestle with feelings of guilt after a murder and deep down they want to be caught, which is why a lot of them slip up subconsciously and become architects of their own downfall. They understand that what they're doing is socially and morally unacceptable but they're controlled by urges that they themselves don't fully comprehend.

Montie might well have been the Ripper, although I see nothing to connect him to the case other than the Macnaghten memo. However, looking at the circumstances of his death, it would seem that it wasn't the guilt of being the Ripper that caused him to punch out early. More likely it was the demanding social pressures that weighed heavily on a man who came from a family with a history of mental illness. And as such, Macnaghten loses one of his cornerstones for suspecting Druitt in the first place.

[John Wheat]

Hi John

That is reasonable simple to explain:

While there is a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence, which does suggest similarities between the Whitechapel killer and Bury, there is in my Opinion nothing which is compelling enough to take the evidence to a higher level than that.

Using the historical sources from the time, it seems clear that a number of senior police officers had a view that does not seem to point at Bury.
And yes, there are mistakes in those reports/comments, and many refuse to accept anything that Anderson says, unfairly in my view.
Additionally there are the reports of Sagar and Cox, which appear, to back some of what Swanson says, that is the suspect is watched day and night.

The Reports/comments of MM, Anderson and Swanson are however primary sources and, while we may not like or personally believe the comments of those Officers in their entirety, to completely ignore those sources, is in my humble opinion poor and bias research.

Bury is a good/strong candidate, some like yourself appear to consider him the best, if not only one; there are some who do not consider him at all, wrongly in my opinion!

And others like myself, see that he is viable, and good suspect, BUT do not believe the Evidence is overwhelming.

hope that explains why.

regards


Steve

To Steve

Thanks for your reply. You have explained why Bury is a strong candidate but you've not really explained why other suspects are preferred as the Ripper to Bury. I've looked at numerous other suspects and to my mind there is very little to recommend any of them. None of the others with the exception of Kelly are proven violent murderers for example. If pushed I would rank Kelly second to Bury for the reason that he was at least a violent murderer. I take your point about contemporary sources but I don't totally agree with it. However I don't believe the police at the time to have been completely useless which is why I regard witnesses like Hutchinson as just that.

Cheers John

[Elamarna]

Thanks EL



whats all this about?
an unknown witness to kosminisky from Millers court?

Abby

It has been suggested by some, that maybe (now this is all hypothesise with no hard facts I am aware of) there was a witness,who may have seen someone leaving millers court, and was later used for an id. I have heard this put forward, and like many ideas on the murders it lacks any evidence. I therefore mention it as a alternative to a possible sighting at Mitre square, which I feel is much more likely.

I believe this has been put spoken about by Jeff Leahy amongst others, if I am incorrect on this, please all accept my apology now.


Steve

[Elamarna]

To Steve

Thanks for your reply. You have explained why Bury is a strong candidate but you've not really explained why other suspects are preferred as the Ripper to Bury. I've looked at numerous other suspects and to my mind there is very little to recommend any of them. None of the others with the exception of Kelly are proven violent murderers for example. If pushed I would rank Kelly second to Bury for the reason that he was at least a violent murderer. I take your point about contemporary sources but I don't totally agree with it. However I don't believe the police at the time to have been completely useless which is why I regard witnesses like Hutchinson as just that.

Cheers John

John

nice to chat,

I feel I have given reasons for Kosminsky, you obviously disagree, that is the way of things.
Not wanting to sound like Pierre, with no disrespect to him at all, but I also hold primary sources to be important., And here we have 3 separate sources, of course it is possible they all derive from a common lost police report/ reports. That however does not devalue them.
We also have the reports of the 2 undercover detectives as well.

your point :

"None of the others with the exception of Kelly are proven violent murderers for example"

is of course true,this is one issue Bury does have in his favour.

However given that the killer was not caught, and is still unknown, it must be a real probability that he was not known as a proven violent murder.


The reality of course John, is that we all see the "evidence" slightly differently don't we.

I know people who still swear it was Cutbush, and would not describe them as being anything but serious followers of the murders; however I do not agree with them at all, just an example.

cheers

Steve

[John Wheat]

To Steve

I must apologise you are right in one of your earlier posts you have given reason to suspect Kosminski. Although I don't give the contemporary sources as much weight as you obviously do. They are riddled with inaccuracies.

Cheers John

[Elamarna]

To Steve

I must apologise you are right in one of your earlier posts you have given reason to suspect Kosminski. Although I don't give the contemporary sources as much weight as you obviously do. They are riddled with inaccuracies.

Cheers John

Hi John

Thank you for replying
Yes there are many of those, however we will have to disagree on what effect those have on the tendency to name 1 suspect.
The problem as I see it is that we do not know why they chose to name him, there must have been some reason, we can only assume it was lost over the years.


yours

Steve