Suspect breakdown

[Abby Normal]

I'm absolutely on the Blotchy train. Especially since he meets the description of Ada Wilson's attacker. And the man seen with Eddowes.
I think we discount him because we know Kelly was alive for a couple of hours after she went in with him. But since we really don't know anything about his approach to his victims, I think we can't discount the idea that he spent time with them before he killed them. There is certainly significant missing time in everyone's account.

I agree. maybe he waited for things to quiet down around the court-and in this case he had that luxury seeing he had been invited in a private place where he could bide his time if he needed to.

[JeffHamm]

But Jeff, you seem to be saying that Lawende did have reason to take particular notice (otherwise, why say Long didn't?), and even then, Lawende only saw the woman from the back too. So how reliable is Lawende's sighting?
The police would not let Lawende see the face of the victim, he was only permitted to identify her clothes, which were generally similar.

Right, neither of the three men paid particular attention. They had no reason to.

Given the highly contestable timing issues in Mitre Square, I'm more of the opinion that the killer was already at work on his victim when Lawende & Co. came out of the club.
The couple they passed were neither the killer nor the victim.

Lawende and his friends made specific comments to each other when seeing the couple, that's what I mean (one of them, can't recall which, I believe had said something like "I don't like it when those sorts are about", etc). In otherwords, for a period of time the couple was the focus of their conversations, which means they took notice of them. It doesn't mean they took full and accurate descriptions though. But enough notice that when trying to recall events on his walk home, Lawende would have an "event" in his memory to recall (the couple we we talked about, etc), while Mrs. Long was by herself, and just recalled passing a couple which she didn't pay particular notice too as far as I can tell. That's all.

And yes, it's possible they saw a different couple.

- Jeff

[RedBundy13]

My favorite witness has always been overlooked, but IMO he should be the most credible; PC William Smith. He witnesses Liz within 20 to 25 minutes of her being attacked, he recalls seeing her with a flower in her jacket and he gives a good description of the man she was seen with. Who's also fairly similar to the man Schwartz and Lawende describe with a few differing details which we all now know is completely understandable when dealing with eyewitness descriptions. What I like best about his sighting is the fact that he 1: Describes the flower in Strides jacket, and 2: States the the person she was with was carrying a newspaper parcel 6"x18" or so. Which to me, definitely rings true. Thats probably the best way for JTR to be carrying his knife, rather than keeping it on his person. Especially the dealing with prostitutes who would probably be more "hands on" than most. And I doubt very seriously if a knife was discovered on a client, that a prostitute would go down a dark alley with him. No matter how desperate she was for money. Theres always another client, so why risk it for a few pennies?

Also, my fav. suspect (Hutchinson) gives states that he seen a man carrying a wrapped parcel when he was picking up Mary Kelly... I know not too many other people see this as a big coincidence like I do, but to me Smith's sighting of a man carrying a parcel seen within a half hour of Strides death and then the only other description of a possible suspect carrying another wrapped package just so happens to come from a man who's so plainly giving a false statement, thats trying to implicate a Jewish man as being JTR, just seems a little bit better than coincidence. So its either 1 of 3 things; 1: Hutchison is telling the truth and we have at least two JTR's. 2: He's REALY up on the case and follows it extremely close, and has come forward to either help someone out by lying to the police and sending them in the wrong direction or he's just looking for a few minutes of fame by seeing his name in the paper. Or 3: He's STILL really up on the case, but thats because he IS The Ripper and he's just come forward to get the police back on to the right scent; as in JTR is a venomous, bloodthirsty Jew, thats out to commit his blood libel... and the police need to get back on this track because they're off it looking for Blotchy.

SUSPECTS:
Hutchinson: 50%
Someone unknown: 35%
Another named suspect: 15%
Tumblety, Sickert, Jill The Ripper, Prince Albert, Lewis Carroll & Dr. Cream: 0%

[RedBundy13]

Lawende and his friends made specific comments to each other when seeing the couple, that's what I mean (one of them, can't recall which, I believe had said something like "I don't like it when those sorts are about", etc). In otherwords, for a period of time the couple was the focus of their conversations, which means they took notice of them. It doesn't mean they took full and accurate descriptions though. But enough notice that when trying to recall events on his walk home, Lawende would have an "event" in his memory to recall (the couple we we talked about, etc), while Mrs. Long was by herself, and just recalled passing a couple which she didn't pay particular notice too as far as I can tell. That's all.

And yes, it's possible they saw a different couple.

- Jeff

I too don't like Long as a witness, or at least a witness that seen the Vic. & JTR talking. I've always thought she was long dead by then (and yes, I do know that that would mean the other 2 "witnesses" were also mistaken). For me, I agree with the medical Dr.'s opinion that she was dead for several hours before being found. After all, when she left her Doss house she told two people to make sure to hold her bed for her, that she'll be returning shortly with the money to pay for the bed. Yet we're supposed to believe that she was still out looking 4 hours later? Yes, I know she wasn't the best looking flower in the bunch, but I still don't think she would have asked them to hold it had she thought she wouldnt be right back. She was a pro, she knew how long, or at least about how long it would take her to make her Doss money and really I honestly feel that she wouldn't have asked them to hold it if she thought it would have taken her the rest of the night to come up with it. Yes, I'm putting my thoughts and feelings into another persons that I literally have no clue how she thought and lived, but I'm just using logic and reasoning.
And sure, Richardson could have easily have missed her, it was dark and plus the door would probably have blocked most if not all of her body. And Cadosch at first claims he thought her heard the noise coming from the complete opposite yard! And really? He would have been less than, what, 3 feet from them when he went back up the stairs into the house. He couldn't of peeked over if he really thought there was someone down there who had said "No!"... I don't know, I'm just not yet quite sold on it

[JeffHamm]

I too don't like Long as a witness, or at least a witness that seen the Vic. & JTR talking. I've always thought she was long dead by then (and yes, I do know that that would mean the other 2 "witnesses" were also mistaken). For me, I agree with the medical Dr.'s opinion that she was dead for several hours before being found. After all, when she left her Doss house she told two people to make sure to hold her bed for her, that she'll be returning shortly with the money to pay for the bed. Yet we're supposed to believe that she was still out looking 4 hours later? Yes, I know she wasn't the best looking flower in the bunch, but I still don't think she would have asked them to hold it had she thought she wouldnt be right back. She was a pro, she knew how long, or at least about how long it would take her to make her Doss money and really I honestly feel that she wouldn't have asked them to hold it if she thought it would have taken her the rest of the night to come up with it. Yes, I'm putting my thoughts and feelings into another persons that I literally have no clue how she thought and lived, but I'm just using logic and reasoning.
And sure, Richardson could have easily have missed her, it was dark and plus the door would probably have blocked most if not all of her body. And Cadosch at first claims he thought her heard the noise coming from the complete opposite yard! And really? He would have been less than, what, 3 feet from them when he went back up the stairs into the house. He couldn't of peeked over if he really thought there was someone down there who had said "No!"... I don't know, I'm just not yet quite sold on it

Hi RedBundy13,

I guess my problem with the medical estimates for Time of Death is that they were based upon touching the body which is simply not a reliable method and ends up being no better than guess work. They also mention rigor mortis (stiffening of the limbs I believe they phrased it in a report), but again, that can be highly variable, and there's a stiffening that also occurs if a body is cooled too rapidly, and as it was cool, the body was opened and so would cool more quickly, blood loss, and so forth, the slight stiffening of the limbs might not have been rigor but muscle contraction due to low temperatures. Again, the techniques available at the time, despite the doctor's experience, are known to be unreliable. And in that light, I see 3 witnesses whose statements agree and place her death around 5:30 am.

I suspect she would have asked him to hold her bed regardless of her expectations. No matter how long it might have taken her to obtain her doss money, she would want a bed upon her return.

Of course, I'm not saying I'm right. We know too little to hold that strong a view, so I'm always interested in hearing alternative views. I've even adopted some of those as my own as a result.

- Jeff

[RedBundy13]

For me, its just too tight. and I don't feel that the Ripper would have taken an incredible risk like that, killing someone when there was someone literally a few feet away on the other side of a 5' fence. Don't get me wrong, he took risks (especially with Stride when/if he was seen attacking her, but thats quite a difference from one another. Meaning killing someone and throwing someone to the ground). And I'm sure it also could be argued that he may have not yet killed Chapman, that he too was just throwing her to the ground. But we're talking about a fence here, not a brick wall. And a dilapidated one at that. A fence that could possibly have been seen through. And at that time it would have already started to get light out. It's just my opinion, that it would have been an incredible risk. And then to take them time to "arrange" her belongings at her feet, after just having gutted her and thrown her intestines over her shoulder. All the while the neighbor Cadosch was walking in and out of the house... Yet I know that all the eyewitness testimony tells me I'm wrong, but I'm still having trouble buying it. For me, it just fits better (and also would match up better with the Rippers other crimes) if he had killed her between 2 and 3am. Though I admit, I absolutely could be completely wrong on this.

I know I'm probably in the very small minority on this one with maybe less than 1 or 2% of the people on this site would agree with me about Chapman but thats alright. We absolutely need differences in opinion on the site. I also feel the same way on a few more instances with Ripper crimes, where my view along with a some others are not always the most popular. i.e: 1: Emma Smith, I'm a pretty firm believer that she was also killed by the Ripper, yet her very own testimony would say I'm wrong, but I feel that she was lying to cover up for the fact that she was out soliciting. 2: Martha Tabram was also a Ripper victim (though I think more people than not are now agreeing with this one). 3: Alice McKenzie was definitely a Ripper victim as well. 4: I'm leaning more towards Francis Coles also being a Ripper vic, though I'm not as sold on this one as the others. 5: Jack wrote the Goulston St. Graffito and one or more of the Letters that are now a days thought to have been done by a journalist and a medical student who commits felonies. And finally 6: I wouldn't be surprised if the Torso Murderer were also JTR. Otherwise what a coincidence! Two serial killers at work at the same time, picking the same victims in the same area (in some cases) with the crimes being so close. Meaning the type of crime that's meant to shock the person or persons who find the body. Both of those types of crimes are rare. And even though they're technically different, but then again, they are still the same in a lot of other ways and I wouldn't be one bit surprised if they're in fact connected.

[Abby Normal]

For me, its just too tight. and I don't feel that the Ripper would have taken an incredible risk like that, killing someone when there was someone literally a few feet away on the other side of a 5' fence. Don't get me wrong, he took risks (especially with Stride when/if he was seen attacking her, but thats quite a difference from one another. Meaning killing someone and throwing someone to the ground). And I'm sure it also could be argued that he may have not yet killed Chapman, that he too was just throwing her to the ground. But we're talking about a fence here, not a brick wall. And a dilapidated one at that. A fence that could possibly have been seen through. And at that time it would have already started to get light out. It's just my opinion, that it would have been an incredible risk. And then to take them time to "arrange" her belongings at her feet, after just having gutted her and thrown her intestines over her shoulder. All the while the neighbor Cadosch was walking in and out of the house... Yet I know that all the eyewitness testimony tells me I'm wrong, but I'm still having trouble buying it. For me, it just fits better (and also would match up better with the Rippers other crimes) if he had killed her between 2 and 3am. Though I admit, I absolutely could be completely wrong on this.

I know I'm probably in the very small minority on this one with maybe less than 1 or 2% of the people on this site would agree with me about Chapman but thats alright. We absolutely need differences in opinion on the site. I also feel the same way on a few more instances with Ripper crimes, where my view along with a some others are not always the most popular. i.e: 1: Emma Smith, I'm a pretty firm believer that she was also killed by the Ripper, yet her very own testimony would say I'm wrong, but I feel that she was lying to cover up for the fact that she was out soliciting. 2: Martha Tabram was also a Ripper victim (though I think more people than not are now agreeing with this one). 3: Alice McKenzie was definitely a Ripper victim as well. 4: I'm leaning more towards Francis Coles also being a Ripper vic, though I'm not as sold on this one as the others. 5: Jack wrote the Goulston St. Graffito and one or more of the Letters that are now a days thought to have been done by a journalist and a medical student who commits felonies. And finally 6: I wouldn't be surprised if the Torso Murderer were also JTR. Otherwise what a coincidence! Two serial killers at work at the same time, picking the same victims in the same area (in some cases) with the crimes being so close. Meaning the type of crime that's meant to shock the person or persons who find the body. Both of those types of crimes are rare. And even though they're technically different, but then again, they are still the same in a lot of other ways and I wouldn't be one bit surprised if they're in fact connected.

Hi red
re your first paragraph- im sure richardson would have seen the body and along with the other witness statements and im pretyy sure that chapman was killed around 5:30 am.

re your sexond paragraph. I agree with pretty much everything you say except smith and coles. Smith wasnt a ripper victim. She didnt need to lie to cover up if she was prostituting. Even if she was soliciting she could have just been truthful and said it was one man who attacked her. Nothing really changes her story whether its one man or three. Also, her injuries sustained suggest more than one man as she was probably held down by one or two, while the other assaulted her with the blunt object to the privates. I cant see just one man being able to that.

coles may have been a ripper victim, but i think not. Sadler probably killed her, just not enough evidence.

replace smith with millwood, though and your on the right track.

im also one of the few who lean toward dear boss and or from hell were written by the ripper and that he was probably also torsoman. The idea that there were two post mortem type serial killers who liked to cut up unfortunates and lurking around the same time is too much of a coincidence for me.

[RedBundy13]

Hi red
re your first paragraph- im sure richardson would have seen the body and along with the other witness statements and im pretyy sure that chapman was killed around 5:30 am.

re your sexond paragraph. I agree with pretty much everything you say except smith and coles. Smith wasnt a ripper victim. She didnt need to lie to cover up if she was prostituting. Even if she was soliciting she could have just been truthful and said it was one man who attacked her. Nothing really changes her story whether its one man or three. Also, her injuries sustained suggest more than one man as she was probably held down by one or two, while the other assaulted her with the blunt object to the privates. I cant see just one man being able to that.



im also one of the few who lean toward dear boss and or from hell were written by the ripper and that he was probably also torsoman. The idea that there were two post mortem type serial killers who liked to cut up unfortunates and lurking around the same time is too much of a coincidence for me.

Hi Abby, thanks for the quotes! I absolutely value your opinion! A while back you turned me onto Hutchinson as a suspect and I'm so glad and thankful for that because at times it seems like im 99% sure he was the Ripper. And then theres other times when he drops to under 50%. So I'm still going back and forth, but he's still absolutely my fav suspect. If only he had rented a house or a floor or even a shed (and he may well have and we just don't know it, however improbable that may seem), because thats what I feel like the Torso Killer would have absolutely needed and Jack would have benefited from, though it wouldn't have been an absolute necessity in Jacks case.

I also agree with you on Annie Millwood, she def could have been a Ripper vic. Maybe even a probable Ripper victim. Though on Emma Smith I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, lol! I'm with Tom Wescott and his book The Bank Holiday Murders on that one. IMO, he makes a great case regarding her murder. I'll be the first to admit that I definitely could be wrong, though I do have a sneaking suspicion that in time (possibly a LONG time), history may prove it right...

As far as 1 man would have trouble doing all that was done to her, I don't necessarily disagree with you on the fact that it would have been easier with three people, but I do feel that it absolutely could have been done by one strong man. If he had her pinned up against a wall with one hand, while with the other he could have assaulted her. And as they say "Three people can keep a secret, if two are dead".

I've always asked myself that question, "How did three men who were rapists or about to become rapists happen to find each other?" I understand that every so often, two happen to stumble across one another and eventually team up, but what are the chances of three? There is no possible way that I would have allowed that to happen if I was one of the three in that group of criminals that night. And theres no way any of my friends would have either. And we were by no means, to use a very old expression: "goodie two shoes".

It's just really difficult for me to picture three people doing that to a women and not one stopping and saying "wait a minute here, what the hell are we doing? This just isn't right. Lets just rob her and move on." unless of course all three were sexual psychos. But then not to say anything else about it, ever again? Very strange. Though again, not impossible because most would think 'Why would they say something? They just killed someone, of course they wouldn't open their mouths about it!' But we know today that people DO talk about their crimes, especially when drunk or high and with people they love/trust. And its those people who sometimes bring that info to law enforcement. And with a case as big as the Whitechapel Murders, that might be a tough one to keep your mouth closed on. Just my rookie opinion though.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby, thanks for the quotes! I absolutely value your opinion! A while back you turned me onto Hutchinson as a suspect and I'm so glad and thankful for that because at times it seems like im 99% sure he was the Ripper. And then theres other times when he drops to under 50%. So I'm still going back and forth, but he's still absolutely my fav suspect. If only he had rented a house or a floor or even a shed (and he may well have and we just don't know it, however improbable that may seem), because thats what I feel like the Torso Killer would have absolutely needed and Jack would have benefited from, though it wouldn't have been an absolute necessity in Jacks case.

I also agree with you on Annie Millwood, she def could have been a Ripper vic. Maybe even a probable Ripper victim. Though on Emma Smith I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, lol! I'm with Tom Wescott and his book The Bank Holiday Murders on that one. IMO, he makes a great case regarding her murder. I'll be the first to admit that I definitely could be wrong, though I do have a sneaking suspicion that in time (possibly a LONG time), history may prove it right...

As far as 1 man would have trouble doing all that was done to her, I don't necessarily disagree with you on the fact that it would have been easier with three people, but I do feel that it absolutely could have been done by one strong man. If he had her pinned up against a wall with one hand, while with the other he could have assaulted her. And as they say "Three people can keep a secret, if two are dead".

I've always asked myself that question, "How did three men who were rapists or about to become rapists happen to find each other?" I understand that every so often, two happen to stumble across one another and eventually team up, but what are the chances of three? There is no possible way that I would have allowed that to happen if I was one of the three in that group of criminals that night. And theres no way any of my friends would have either. And we were by no means, to use a very old expression: "goodie two shoes".

It's just really difficult for me to picture three people doing that to a women and not one stopping and saying "wait a minute here, what the hell are we doing? This just isn't right. Lets just rob her and move on." unless of course all three were sexual psychos. But then not to say anything else about it, ever again? Very strange. Though again, not impossible because most would think 'Why would they say something? They just killed someone, of course they wouldn't open their mouths about it!' But we know today that people DO talk about their crimes, especially when drunk or high and with people they love/trust. And its those people who sometimes bring that info to law enforcement. And with a case as big as the Whitechapel Murders, that might be a tough one to keep your mouth closed on. Just my rookie opinion though.

thanks red
yes I go back and forth between Hutch and blotchy on the top spot of viable ripper suspects. still leaning toward hutch at the moment, especially since Stephen Sinise recent excellent article/books on Jewish angle and aussie George. where as I don't go as far as him with that idea, I think there is something to it. I cant help but notice the only two pieces of direct evidence for a jewish suspect is the GSG and hutchs fake Aman. as in hutch tried to falsely implicate jews with the GSG and continued on this theme with jewish Aman suspect. I noticed a long time ago this connection (even before I read Sinise)-not only it being the ONLY times a jewish supect is in direct evidence, but also the fake jew blaming in both.

re smith-no worries but think more along the lines of gang rape and or mugging gotten out of hand to explain the group attack.

[RedBundy13]

still leaning toward hutch at the moment, especially since Stephen Sinise recent excellent article/books on Jewish angle and aussie George. where as I don't go as far as him with that idea, I think there is something to it. I cant help but notice the only two pieces of direct evidence for a jewish suspect is the GSG and hutchs fake Aman. as in hutch tried to falsely implicate jews with the GSG and continued on this theme with jewish Aman suspect.

Yes, I absolutely agree! I also think the "Lipski" name calling might also possibly be a piece of direct evidence in the case but that's arguable too I guess. A good prosecutor could use it as a damning piece of evidence though, me thinks.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I still do not understand why people feel that the shout of Lipski is trying to implicate a Jew. I am trying not to sound racist here but recently, in my home town some Asian men where convicted of exploiting young girls. Now the leaders surname was Ahmed. I cannot imagine an Asian man shouting Ahmed to another Asian man who witnessed him assaulting a girl. More likely a white man shouting Ahmed as a derogatory term to the Asian witness, [as I am sure the police would think as well today]. All this surely applies to 1888 and it being very unlikely that a Jew would call another Jew such a recently made, bad derogatory word. So why it is now seen, shouting Lipski is trying to implicate a Jew is beyond me.

[Abby Normal]

I still do not understand why people feel that the shout of Lipski is trying to implicate a Jew. I am trying not to sound racist here but recently, in my home town some Asian men where convicted of exploiting young girls. Now the leaders surname was Ahmed. I cannot imagine an Asian man shouting Ahmed to another Asian man who witnessed him assaulting a girl. More likely a white man shouting Ahmed as a derogatory term to the Asian witness, [as I am sure the police would think as well today]. All this surely applies to 1888 and it being very unlikely that a Jew would call another Jew such a recently made, bad derogatory word. So why it is now seen, shouting Lipski is trying to implicate a Jew is beyond me.

hi Darryl (and Red)
I agree. I don't see the shout of Lipski as intentionally trying to implicate a jew. I see it as a pissed off gentile ripper yelling at a jew in anger and or to scare him off. and part of the catalyst of why the ripper later wrote the GSG, which IMHO, IS trying to implicate a jew/s.
Its a narrative of the events of that night that works for me and makes sense.

[Kattrup]

I still do not understand why people feel that the shout of Lipski is trying to implicate a Jew.

Maybe “people” have read police opinion at the time?

[as I am sure the police would think as well today]. All this surely applies to 1888

We’re discussing events that happened 130 years ago. The world was very different. People looked different and they spoke, behaved, thought differently from today. So nothing that applies today “surely” applies then. The idea that what we find reasonable would also be reasonable to the past is a common but grave mistake.

So why it is now seen, shouting Lipski is trying to implicate a Jew is beyond me.

Because police at the time were unable to determine whether he’d shouted it to a bystander or an accomplice. They leaned heavily towards the first (as you and Abby Normal so easily do, now, 130 years away from the chaos and confusion) but, being good cops, were obliged to investigate the second.

[jerryd]

I still do not understand why people feel that the shout of Lipski is trying to implicate a Jew. I am trying not to sound racist here but recently, in my home town some Asian men where convicted of exploiting young girls. Now the leaders surname was Ahmed. I cannot imagine an Asian man shouting Ahmed to another Asian man who witnessed him assaulting a girl. More likely a white man shouting Ahmed as a derogatory term to the Asian witness, [as I am sure the police would think as well today]. All this surely applies to 1888 and it being very unlikely that a Jew would call another Jew such a recently made, bad derogatory word. So why it is now seen, shouting Lipski is trying to implicate a Jew is beyond me.

Hi DK,

It was used on a few occasions in 1888 as a derogatory word against another Jew.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/elizabeth-stride/3419-lipski-anti-semitic-insult

[Darryl Kenyon]

Maybe “people” have read police opinion at the time?

Charles Warren, letter dated 6 Nov - It appears that since the Lipski case it has come to be used as an epithet in addressing or speaking of Jews.
Epithet, [from the dictionary] - an epithet used as a term of abuse.
"people jeered and hurled racial epithets"