Which Suspects are Viable candidates

[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

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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”

[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.

[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.

[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]

"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?

[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

[GBinOz]

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.

Or Mrs Maxwell.

[JeffHamm]

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

Hi George,

There is a "sub-species" of serial killer, often referred to as "black widows" because they are more commonly female, where their victims are typically spouses and/or other family members, but there are cases where the victims were borders or other close associates. The most common method is by poisoning, and there is usually a profit motivation (insurance, inheritance, etc) behind the murders. While the profit motivation also sets them apart from the more commonly thought of serial killer they are, nonetheless, committing a series of murders spaced out over time. We often limit our view to sexually and/or anger motivated serial killers, in which case the victims are more prone to be strangers, but this type of killer targets close relationships.

I guess, therefore, it depends upon how one defines the group to look at. If one excludes black widows because of the profit motivation, for example, then one runs the risk of defining out those who kill family members.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

There is a "sub-species" of serial killer, often referred to as "black widows" because they are more commonly female, where their victims are typically spouses and/or other family members, but there are cases where the victims were borders or other close associates. The most common method is by poisoning, and there is usually a profit motivation (insurance, inheritance, etc) behind the murders. While the profit motivation also sets them apart from the more commonly thought of serial killer they are, nonetheless, committing a series of murders spaced out over time. We often limit our view to sexually and/or anger motivated serial killers, in which case the victims are more prone to be strangers, but this type of killer targets close relationships.

I guess, therefore, it depends upon how one defines the group to look at. If one excludes black widows because of the profit motivation, for example, then one runs the risk of defining out those who kill family members.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I suppose that Deeming and Chapman might be considered Black Widows in that the murders for which they were executed were all family members. Dave's suspect, Sutton, is alleged to have had a motive in that he was allegedly being blackmailed. However, my thought was towards a serial killer that murdered family members because he/she wanted them out of the way (motive), and strangers as well. I've come across one case - Fred and Rosemary West, the English married couple who murdered at least a dozen young women, including several of their own daughters. I suppose the other consideration in the cases of Bury, Deeming and Chapman is that the wives may have found out about their JtR activities and had to be silenced, thus providing a motive.

Although it has been suggested that Jack may have lived in the same area as his victims and possibly known them, there doesn't seem to be a motive other than the psychotic desire to kill and mutilate women, which is entirely different to the motivation driving family, borders associates etc.

What did you think of the French Toast Lechmere video? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR2S...TheFrenchToast)

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I suppose that Deeming and Chapman might be considered Black Widows in that the murders for which they were executed were all family members. Dave's suspect, Sutton, is alleged to have had a motive in that he was allegedly being blackmailed. However, my thought was towards a serial killer that murdered family members because he/she wanted them out of the way (motive), and strangers as well. I've come across one case - Fred and Rosemary West, the English married couple who murdered at least a dozen young women, including several of their own daughters. I suppose the other consideration in the cases of Bury, Deeming and Chapman is that the wives may have found out about their JtR activities and had to be silenced, thus providing a motive.

Although it has been suggested that Jack may have lived in the same area as his victims and possibly known them, there doesn't seem to be a motive other than the psychotic desire to kill and mutilate women, which is entirely different to the motivation driving family, borders associates etc.

What did you think of the French Toast Lechmere video? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR2S...TheFrenchToast)

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Yes, I think Chapman in particular would fit the Black Widow description. I confess, I've forgotten much about the particulars of Deeming's case, other than he hid the bodies of his first family under the floorboards and fled to Australia. I believe he did the same again there? Or am I misremembering that? It is more typical of Black Widows to remain in plain site, in order to obtain insurance money, and also as they tend to be poisoners, to pass off the deaths as a result of an illness. Nannie Doss is a good example (she killed 5 husbands, a mother-in-law, her mother, two sisters, two of her children, and two grandchildren! She was only caught, and I think only suspected, after her 5th husband died! She's referred to as the "Giggling Grannie" at times. Fred and Rosemary West were sadistic sexual killers, and a rare example of ones who killed family members as well as strangers.

And we may never know JtR's actual motive. Mutilation murders are, thankfully, very rare. Generally, though, for the types of mutilations we see in the JtR cases they are associated with mental illness, but I don't think that's universal. Of course, there are some who decapitate, or dismember, often to ease transportation of a body, which is a different motivation from JtR's (he doesn't transport them anywhere). That being said, I don't think it would be wise to dismiss someone simply on the basis of "they seem normal and show no signs of psychosis". It's just one of the many things to consider.

I'll have a watch of the video and get back to you. I admit, I tend to find suspect oriented presentations a bit disappointing as they can often be quite selective in their presentation of the information, and also rely heavily on clever use of adjectives over facts.
But there's always something to learn and it's good to hear various perspectives.

- Jeff