Should known murderers be given priority in consideration?

[Defective Detective]

Hello, all.

Of the two hundred-plus individuals that have been named as Jack the Ripper, only a few stand out as having ever been proven to have murdered at all. Some of them are serial killers regardless of their responsibility for the Whitechapel murders: Severin Klosowski, Frederick Deeming, and Dr. Thomas Neil Cream were just as notorious in their day as Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez are in our own. Others are known only to have committed one such crime, but the circumstances seem to summon to mind the Autumn of Terror. Chief among them are James Kelly, Carl Feigenbaum and William Bury. Still others are not known to have killed, but were instead caught in the attempt, e.g. William Grant Grainger.

Should the focus for any search begin with these men and those like them? Does the fact that they killed (or tried to) weigh more heavily than circumstantial evidence against their having been involved in the Ripper killings? Does the fact that multiple serial murderers may have been operating in close proximity at the time hopelessly blur the lines between them in this case, as it nearly did with Bundy and the Green River Killer?

[Bob Hinton]

The answer is...

no.....

[DVV]

no.....

Nuff said !

[Rubyretro]

Nuff said !

I'll 'third' that !

[DVV]

I'll 'third' that !

More than nuff said...but worth repeating, héhé !

[KatBradshaw]

Funny I thought that you were going to say the opposite! I would have guessed that it would be the other way around!

[Scorpio]

Hello, all.

Of the two hundred-plus individuals that have been named as Jack the Ripper, only a few stand out as having ever been proven to have murdered at all. Some of them are serial killers regardless of their responsibility for the Whitechapel murders: Severin Klosowski, Frederick Deeming, and Dr. Thomas Neil Cream were just as notorious in their day as Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez are in our own. Others are known only to have committed one such crime, but the circumstances seem to summon to mind the Autumn of Terror. Chief among them are James Kelly, Carl Feigenbaum and William Bury. Still others are not known to have killed, but were instead caught in the attempt, e.g. William Grant Grainger.

Should the focus for any search begin with these men and those like them? Does the fact that they killed (or tried to) weigh more heavily than circumstantial evidence against their having been involved in the Ripper killings? Does the fact that multiple serial murderers may have been operating in close proximity at the time hopelessly blur the lines between them in this case, as it nearly did with Bundy and the Green River Killer?

Hello, it is not as simple a matter as being a known murdrerer,but a matter of who they killed, when they killed and how they killed. Of all the known murderer suspects,only Bury cuts it. Excuse the pun.

[protohistorian]

Fourthsies! Dave

[sdreid]

I wouldn't say necessarily priority but it is an element to be considered. When a bank is robbed, the police often look at previously convicted and released bank robbers first.

[kensei]

Hello, it is not as simple a matter as being a known murdrerer,but a matter of who they killed, when they killed and how they killed. Of all the known murderer suspects,only Bury cuts it. Excuse the pun.

Bury AND James Kelly, I would say. Both cut it, as they both killed their wives by knife, and Kelly escaped from custody some months before the Ripper murders began. I think it's most likely that the Ripper has never been named, but if he has those two are my current favorite suspects and I would love to see an in-depth study comparing them.

[Abby Normal]

Bury AND James Kelly, I would say. Both cut it, as they both killed their wives by knife, and Kelly escaped from custody some months before the Ripper murders began. I think it's most likely that the Ripper has never been named, but if he has those two are my current favorite suspects and I would love to see an in-depth study comparing them.

Hi Kensei
I agree. I think James Kelly, William Bury, and George Chapman to some extent are all viable candidates. I don't think known killers of women who were in the area should be dismissed so lightly, especially since all were suspects and/or persons of interest to the police at the time. I think with all the suspects that have been put out there, that one should not undersestimate men who have been shown capable of committing murder. To me it should be a pretty significant factor.

[DVV]

Hi Kensei
I agree. I think James Kelly, William Bury, and George Chapman to some extent are all viable candidates. I don't think known killers of women who were in the area should be dismissed so lightly, especially since all were suspects and/or persons of interest to the police at the time. I think with all the suspects that have been put out there, that one should not undersestimate men who have been shown capable of committing murder. To me it should be a pretty significant factor.

Hi Abby,

Viable candidates when compared to many others, yes, but...
The Ripper murders are SO different.

Amitiés
David

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Viable candidates when compared to many others, yes, but...
The Ripper murders are SO different.

Amitiés
David

Hi DVV
I agree-but MURDER is so different.

[Raoul's Obsession]

Plain murder aint enough.

I think their status as a known murder is part of a body of circumstantial evidence that you could bring against a suspect, but I wouldn't consider it miles above other circumstantial evidence. The reason for this is that it fails to consider WHY they murdered in the first place. James Kelly was a lunatic and it's hard to say why he murdered his wife, though Bury, Chapman & Deeming all murdered their wives for what appeared like financial reasons (and maybe a touch of boredom). I would suggest that despite them being known and convicted murderers, their murders are not motivated by the same thoughts/beliefs and compulsions than our Jack. The only known killer of prostitutes for no apparent purpose other than pleasure was Neill Cream (not that I am suggesting he's our man). Of course I wouldn't want to exclude Kelly either as the man was clearly unhinged.

I think that we should definately be interested in people with a track record of murder but perhaps narrow it down to those with a track record of sadistic, motiveless murder.

Raoul

[Tecs]

I think that we should definately be interested in people with a track record of murder but perhaps narrow it down to those with a track record of sadistic, motiveless murder.

I agree. I have always been amazed for example that people dismiss Klosowski so readily but accept Druitt and others who never showed an ounce of malice or agression to anyone. It takes an amazing amount of something (I've never known what the right word would be, malice,? energy? chutzpah???) to be a serial killer and ordinary people can't just get up one day and kill.

Having said that, ordinary people do of course become serial killers, get up one day and decide to kill! But hopefully you know what I mean, you are either a serial killer, dormant or active, or you are not and in my opinion unless we have good evidence that somebody was able to get over that very high hurdle of becoming a serial killer, we can't assume that an ordinary person would.

An interesting comparison would be Peter Sutcliffe who didn't have any convictions for violence and on the face of it was a normal family man. If the case was unsolved and we looked back now, we would not find him in the police file of major suspects (a lesson for the Macnaughton memo?) we would not see any history of violence and we would probably move on to the next suspect. And yet, it was him 100%

Interestingly though, there would be enough to put together a very good circumstantional case against him if we had access to everything that we know now.

Regards,