Which Suspects are Viable candidates

[GBinOz]

How many serial killers, especially those who demonstrate an escalation in mutilations, simply stop?

- If he didn't die soon after the murders, then what is the reason for no more murders?
- If he was incarcerated soon after the murders, then how many 'viable' suspects were locked up for whatever reason?
- If he went abroad, then where do we find the same type of murders and in what country?

The fact the murders suddenly ceased is rarely addressed when theorists promote their suspect.

Hi Jon,

Actually, there are a number of serial killers who stopped, or had pauses in their killings. Gary Ridgeway, Joseph DeAngelo, Lonnie Franklin, Jr. and Dennis Rader all stopped and were arrested 10 or more years later. It is believed that the Zodiac had gaps of years between his murders.

Are there any statistics on how many convicted serial killers had wives or family members included in their body count? Don't serial killers, by definition, confine their victims to people they don't know? Deeming murdered two wives and five children, Chapman three wives and Bury one wife. Does that fit the profile of a serial killer?

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

"If we accept Hutchinson's evidence as being true, then Blotchy is out of the picture."

Not if AMan and Blotchy were conspiring together which is my take FWIW.

Ok, but let me pose this question.

Are we here to create a plot with the most intrigue, or to theorize based on what the evidence suggests?

The way I see it, if we are to consider two apparently separate individuals working together, then it is necessary to show some connection between the two. Either their abode, place of employment, local pub, club, etc. much like how the police would approach the mystery today.

Are you researching the subject towards this end Martyn?

[mpriestnall]

"If we accept Hutchinson's evidence as being true, then Blotchy is out of the picture."

Not if AMan and Blotchy were conspiring together which is my take FWIW.

[Wickerman]

Hi Aeth, your point stands up only if you believe that a very drunk Mary Kelly had an assignation with Blotchy then wandered out into a rainy night to wander the streets.

Walter Dew discounted Hutchinson's evidence.

If we accept Hutchinson's evidence as being true, then Blotchy is out of the picture.

If however we reject Hutchinson's evidence, we are left with Mrs Cox's evidence, and the very strong likelihood that Blotchy was the killer.

Yet, Hutchinson's statement is not the end of the story.

The police had to return to Millers Court after Hutchinson showed up, they interviewed more people. Some of whom admitted to seeing Kelly out between 2:00 and 3:00am, and Mrs Kennedy saw her about 3:00am., but with another man.

The story doesn't end with the statements of either Cox or Hutchinson, but with Mrs Kennedy.

[Wickerman]

... I'm also not a fan of witnesses being turned into suspects.

It just goes to show how easy it is to invent accusations against anyone.

[Aethelwulf]

BTW-the missing from his lodgings on relevant nights-what is the source for this? I do beleive this is the first time ive heard this about Bury.

from the research of norman hastings who spoke with detectives who worked on bury - these and the other suspicious looking comments are below (taken from steve earp's website - his analysis is there). to be fair not all of the murder dates are accounted for because I guess they couldn't trace all of his addresses (bullet point 5). There is the catch-all of point 4. think of what we know of bury's behaviour and the points below, surely he is the prime suspect?

• Scotland Yard “had established the fact that he was missing from his lodgings on the night that Marie Kelly was done to death in her home in Dorset Street”
• Scotland Yard learned that “on one occasion when he was definitely known to be staying in the East End at the time of a Ripper crime, he had absented himself from the house for that night in the most suspicious manner”
• The home of Bury in the East End at the time of the Hanbury Street murder was traced, and again it was ascertained that on that night Bury had kept away from his home, and his manner on his return home the next afternoon suggested a madman”
• Scotland Yard “established where he had been staying on the nights of three other of the Whitechapel murders, and from the recollection of those who lived nearby, it was quite possible that he had the opportunity to commit them
• Scotland Yard learned that after returning to London following his August 1888 trip to Wolverhampton, Bury “had apparently constantly changed his address and although the police were able to trace several of these, there were important gaps in his history which they were never able to fill”
• Scotland Yard discovered that “he was in the habit of walking about very quietly and had often frightened people by his silent approach”
• In height and build he answered the description of the suspect seen after two of the murders”
• Scotland Yard felt that “his description was very like that of the man who had been speaking to the young woman Kelly on the night of the crime”
• The Scotland Yard detectives who investigated Bury “kept their own counsel, and when Bury came up for trial it was the common opinion that he was guilty of the Whitechapel crimes and would make a full confession in the event of his being condemned to death”
• “the facts they gathered pointed more and more clearly to Bury being Jack the Ripper, but it was a slow task, entailing months of work, and they had been ordered to make nothing public”

[barnflatwyngarde]

I can't agree with that. on the one hand you have a man we know absolutely nothing about and there is no real reason to be suspicious about (also he becomes irrelevant because of Aman IMO), on the other hand you have a brutal misogynist with the same signature as the ripper missing from his lodgings in the east end on the relevant dates and who the police thought was the killer. same would apply to any other suspect - including Hutch - why would anyone consider someone who gave a witness statement a better suspect that a brutal killer. Totally illogical.

Hi Aeth, your point stands up only if you believe that a very drunk Mary Kelly had an assignation with Blotchy then wandered out into a rainy night to wander the streets.

Walter Dew discounted Hutchinson's evidence.

If we accept Hutchinson's evidence as being true, then Blotchy is out of the picture.

If however we reject Hutchinson's evidence, we are left with Mrs Cox's evidence, and the very strong likelihood that Blotchy was the killer.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby
Are we totally sure Blotchy wasn't Bury? Blotchy sounds like an alcoholic. Bury was certainly an alcoholic.

Cheers John

thats actually a good point-never thought of that. But blotchy was very distictive looking-carrotty mustache and all. Do we have a description of Bury that includes hair color?

[Abby Normal]

I can't agree with that. on the one hand you have a man we know absolutely nothing about and there is no real reason to be suspicious about (also he becomes irrelevant because of Aman IMO), on the other hand you have a brutal misogynist with the same signature as the ripper missing from his lodgings in the east end on the relevant dates and who the police thought was the killer. same would apply to any other suspect - including Hutch - why would anyone consider someone who gave a witness statement a better suspect that a brutal killer. Totally illogical.

maybe. its the stalking behavior and other red flags with hutch (such as Aman-a story I simply find very hard to beleive). its just a gut feeling with me. I know totally unscientific but there it is lol.

and then there is the small problem of Mckenzie who I think was probably a ripper victim. if it wasnt for her, Bury would be number one, or at least tied for number one for me.

and since i dont beleive the aman story, blotchy is still squarely in the picture.

But dont be to hard on me wulf, like I said hes way up there on my list. : )

BTW-the missing from his lodgings on relevant nights-what is the source for this? I do beleive this is the first time ive heard this about Bury.

[John Wheat]

hi wulf
yes Tabram had one cut to the "privates" as i beleive it was described.

and yes Bury makes a good suspect-hes in my top three. and if we only go with named suspects that would exclude my number two-Blotchy and Bury would then be my number two.

Hi Abby
Are we totally sure Blotchy wasn't Bury? Blotchy sounds like an alcoholic. Bury was certainly an alcoholic.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

I can't agree with that. on the one hand you have a man we know absolutely nothing about and there is no real reason to be suspicious about (also he becomes irrelevant because of Aman IMO), on the other hand you have a brutal misogynist with the same signature as the ripper missing from his lodgings in the east end on the relevant dates and who the police thought was the killer. same would apply to any other suspect - including Hutch - why would anyone consider someone who gave a witness statement a better suspect that a brutal killer. Totally illogical.

Hi Aethelwulf
I agree with you as regards Bury. I'm also not a fan of witnesses being turned into suspects.

Cheers John

[Aethelwulf]

hi wulf
yes Tabram had one cut to the "privates" as i beleive it was described.

and yes Bury makes a good suspect-hes in my top three. and if we only go with named suspects that would exclude my number two-Blotchy and Bury would then be my number two.

I can't agree with that. on the one hand you have a man we know absolutely nothing about and there is no real reason to be suspicious about (also he becomes irrelevant because of Aman IMO), on the other hand you have a brutal misogynist with the same signature as the ripper missing from his lodgings in the east end on the relevant dates and who the police thought was the killer. same would apply to any other suspect - including Hutch - why would anyone consider someone who gave a witness statement a better suspect that a brutal killer. Totally illogical.

[Abby Normal]

something else i noticed when looking at the medical reports, as well as the wounds to her lower parts that are described identically to those on eddowes, bury also stabbed ellen once in each groin, i believe eddowes was also stabbed in the groin and wasn't something similar done to tabram or am i mistaken?

also look at bury's lifestyle - wandering, multiple addresses (as found out by the police), petty crime (theft), habitually abusive, explosive temper, cunning, knife carrier, prostitute user, range of low skilled jobs - from all of which he was sacked (despite apparently being very intelligent). I've seen a few docus lately and bury's life matches some known serial killers well - there is a reason he is such a good match to profiles of the killer.

Also, at one level, not the top level, the police fully believed bury was the killer. They found out he was missing from his lodgings on the dates in questions, acted suspiciously and had the opportunity to commit the crimes. what else are we looking for than a confirmed mutilator that has a range of genuine red flags (i mean proper red flags (murder/mutliation), not red flags that aren't red flags (lech).

hi wulf
yes Tabram had one cut to the "privates" as i beleive it was described.

and yes Bury makes a good suspect-hes in my top three. and if we only go with named suspects that would exclude my number two-Blotchy and Bury would then be my number two.

[Aethelwulf]

It is worth noting that Bury had powerfully built arms and shoulders.

something else i noticed when looking at the medical reports, as well as the wounds to her lower parts that are described identically to those on eddowes, bury also stabbed ellen once in each groin, i believe eddowes was also stabbed in the groin and wasn't something similar done to tabram or am i mistaken?

also look at bury's lifestyle - wandering, multiple addresses (as found out by the police), petty crime (theft), habitually abusive, explosive temper, cunning, knife carrier, prostitute user, range of low skilled jobs - from all of which he was sacked (despite apparently being very intelligent). I've seen a few docus lately and bury's life matches some known serial killers well - there is a reason he is such a good match to profiles of the killer.

Also, at one level, not the top level, the police fully believed bury was the killer. They found out he was missing from his lodgings on the dates in questions, acted suspiciously and had the opportunity to commit the crimes. what else are we looking for than a confirmed mutilator that has a range of genuine red flags (i mean proper red flags (murder/mutliation), not red flags that aren't red flags (lech).

[John Wheat]

To my mind, the three most viable candidates are Kozminski, Druitt and Blotchy.

Although I do think that the killer was probably Blotchy.

Nothing dramatic here, just a psychopathic, broad shouldered local man who probably died soon after the Kelly murder.

In relation to my last point, has anyone researched suicides of men in the Whitechapel area in the six months after the Kelly murder?

It is worth noting that Bury had powerfully built arms and shoulders.