Favorite suspect/s?

[Abby Normal]

Hi all

several point I would like to address here.

The comparison of the abdomen cuts is misleading in my view, in the Bury case it is only a few inches we are told; in the case of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly it is completely opened, in the case of Nichols, we are told the main cut is very long, and indeed possible that there were two deep long wounds, depending on how one reads the evidence. This is not really comparable to the Bury case in my opinion, but its only my opinion.


Strangulation, yes there are indications of this in several of the C5, but not by use of a ligature as far as I can tell; However in the Stride case it is probably that her scarf was used to pull her head back, but that is not a ligature.

All this talk about the common dominating factor, the strangulation, abdominal mutilations, etc misses the most glaringly obvious does it not? All the C5 suffered cuts to the neck, has did some of the non C5 such as Mackenzie. Even in the Stride case if we accept her as a victim of JtR, this was what he did, he cut throats.


Whitehall torso, there is plenty of debate as to when this first appeared in the vault, however it was certainly decomposed and in all probability had been dead for some considerable time before Chapman.


Steve

Hi El

All this talk about the common dominating factor, the strangulation, abdominal mutilations, etc misses the most glaringly obvious does it not? All the C5 suffered cuts to the neck, has did some of the non C5 such as Mackenzie. Even in the Stride case if we accept her as a victim of JtR, this was what he did, he cut throats.

well of course
but whats also glaringly obvious is that none of the others were his wife or killed In his own home. The cut throats on the C5 were MO to kill them quietly or quickly-something that might be different with his wife, in his own home. The rippers true goal, his sig, was post mortem mutilation to the abdomen and organ removal. Plus if it started as a drunken row then I can see the MO changing a bit, no?

If he was the ripper-well he gets into the fight with the wife, kills her and he just cant help himself-his true nature comes out in the abdomen cutting.

I really started this thread to get peoples favorite suspects-not to get into endless bickering about it. I guess I should have added that caveat.
I would hate if people were hesitant to do it, if they think theyre pick is just going to be torn apart.

Its been fascinating to see what people think are valid suspects, but its also been cool to see how different posters mindset works.

[Abby Normal]

It's been suggested that Bury tried to make it look like a Ripper murder because he was panicking or drunk, but he didn't have the stomach for it so he just stuffed her into a box until he could think of something else.

Hi Harry
to me that's a little far fetched. I don't think in the annals of crime, someone tried to copy cat another serial killers work to shift blame from himself.

[Abby Normal]

Also Dr Hebbert estimated that she'd been killed 2 months prior to discovery, i.e. the beginning of August 1888, so not the same week as Annie Chapman.

hey JohnG
would love to here your mindset on FT points for validity as a suspect! : )

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry,
Only a month between the finds (well, a month and a day);
Arm 16th Sep
Torso 2nd Oct
Leg 17th Oct

Minor correction, Joshua. I don't want to get off topic on a nice thread but the arm was discovered on September 11th. Bond examined it on the 16th.

Sorry Abby.

[Joshua Rogan]

Minor correction, Joshua. I don't want to get off topic on a nice thread but the arm was discovered on September 11th. Bond examined it on the 16th.

Sorry Abby.

I'm fine with a minor correction Jerry, well spotted. Now you've pointed it out, I can clearly see that my notes say "autopsy" not "arm found" on 16th. Must write more neatly in future.
As you say, the arm was fished from the Thames on 11th Sept....around lunchtime, if that affects the ToD calculations. So 5 weeks before the leg was unearthed.

Now, back to the topic.....

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I am fine with a little disagreement. Let me ask you a question.

The arm was found almost a month before the discovery of the torso and the leg and foot even a few weeks after the torso. Would you agree or disagree that the arm would have been easier to place a TOD than that of the other two discoveries due to the longer length of time they had to decompose? Also keep in mind, Dr Bond and Hebbert looked at the arm a few days after Dr. Neville examined it.

Hi Jerry

In theory yes.
However the more I read about LVP medicine the more I see how when it comes to estimates of such things, there is such variations in views that I feel the estimates need to be viewed with great caution.

I go maybe for a week to 10 days earlier than you suggest. But certainly no more than that.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi El


well of course
but whats also glaringly obvious is that none of the others were his wife or killed In his own home. The cut throats on the C5 were MO to kill them quietly or quickly-something that might be different with his wife, in his own home. The rippers true goal, his sig, was post mortem mutilation to the abdomen and organ removal. Plus if it started as a drunken row then I can see the MO changing a bit, no?

If he was the ripper-well he gets into the fight with the wife, kills her and he just cant help himself-his true nature comes out in the abdomen cutting.

I really started this thread to get peoples favorite suspects-not to get into endless bickering about it. I guess I should have added that caveat.
I would hate if people were hesitant to do it, if they think theyre pick is just going to be torn apart.

Its been fascinating to see what people think are valid suspects, but its also been cool to see how different posters mindset works.

Abby agree with all your finally half. We may disagree about why throats were cut. Fisherman would argue in Nichols case it was done second.

As you say it's interesting to see how people think.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

Abby agree with all your finally half. We may disagree about why throats were cut. Fisherman would argue in Nichols case it was done second.

As you say it's interesting to see how people think.


Steve

Thanks El
and I appreciate your frankness on your list of favored suspects. Since you and another poster listed Sickert in all sincerity-Ive gone back to do a little more learning on sickert and the letter writing connection. while he still on my third tier of suspects, hes nudged up past maybrick on my list. : )

[c.d.]

Well I had always favored Chapman as the best of a bad bunch based for the most part on Sugden. But I understand that Helena's fine book kind of put Chapman on the back burner.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I just watched a documentary on the case of hijacker D.B. Cooper. One of the researchers had spent I think seven years on the case and was convinced that he had cracked the case only to find that his favored suspect had been ruled out by the F.B.I. and that the stewardess who spent the most time with the hijacker did not think the picture of the favored suspect was Cooper. He did appear to take it well under the circumstances. I bring this up because he said that there is a real danger in that once you become confident that you have found your man you tend to view all evidence in that light.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Well I had always favored Chapman as the best of a bad bunch based for the most part on Sugden. But I understand that Helena's fine book kind of put Chapman on the back burner.

c.d.

Hi cd
Chapman was my first favored suspect, also partially based on Sugdens book.

I haven't had a chance to read her book. I here it's excellent.
Do you know her main reason that rules him out.

[GUT]

I just watched a documentary on the case of hijacker D.B. Cooper. One of the researchers had spent I think seven years on the case and was convinced that he had cracked the case only to find that his favored suspect had been ruled out by the F.B.I. and that the stewardess who spent the most time with the hijacker did not think the picture of the favored suspect was Cooper. He did appear to take it well under the circumstances. I bring this up because he said that there is a real danger in that once you become confident that you have found your man you tend to view all evidence in that light.

c.d.

A real danger, viewing the evidence from the position your man is "it" rather than from the angle of does it support or contrary to him being "it".

I get tired of reading something like "If you look at it from the angle that he was guilty this can fit" and ignoring any interpretation that doesn't fit your theory.

[Sam Flynn]

Well I had always favored Chapman as the best of a bad bunch based for the most part on Sugden. But I understand that Helena's fine book kind of put Chapman on the back burner.

Totally agree about Helena's book, CD; it's a must read - and must buy - if ever there was one, and I can't recommend it highly enough.

If you, or anyone else, would like to read my take on Klosowski, please PM me your email address and I'll send you a copy of my notes for a presentation I gave at Ripperconf a few years ago. I'd post it here, but it's bigger than the permitted file-size.

[c.d.]

Just to be clear I have not yet read Helena's book. It is on my to do list. So I can't really provide an explanation as to why she dismisses Chapman as a suspect but apparently those who have read the book concur with her conclusions.

c.d.

[Dane_F]

A real danger, viewing the evidence from the position your man is "it" rather than from the angle of does it support or contrary to him being "it".

I get tired of reading something like "If you look at it from the angle that he was guilty this can fit" and ignoring any interpretation that doesn't fit your theory.

Yes I remember many years ago when I first discovered Casebook (the old forums, I was still in high school). At the time I spent a few months reading and was convinced Barnett did it, then stopped researching because I figured I had it. It wasn't until 15 years later that I realized when I rejoined here, I really have no idea who did it. Haha.

The plus side to coming to this realization is I find the case FAR more fascinating now. I'd love for someone to come along and be able to convince me of who the killer was. But until then, it does feel really nice to be able to objectively look at things without needing to try to make any specific suspect "fit".