Which Suspects are Viable candidates

[Abby Normal]

Just to derail the incoming, "So now you claim Mizen is a wrong cop" argument, completely ignoring I also said cops can just be wrong or misconstrue, I present this scenario:

Cross: Hey, a policeman's needed in Buck's row, there's a woman lying on the ground, I think she's dead.

Mizen: He said a policeman needed me in Buck's row.


Neither lied. One said a statement, the other slightly misconstrued what he heard, because when he arrived, there was in fact a policeman there.

No actual wrongdoing on Mizen's part, merely a verbal miscommunication which happens no doubt millions of times a day.

Hi Ally

which suspect/s do you find valid? You have ruled out Druitt, now Lechmere and Im curious which, if any, you think have any validity?

Full disclosure-
The whodunnit aspect of the case is admittedly my main draw to the subject, but Ive always said all the suspects are weak, some just less than others. and my first tier of least weak suspects, somewhat in order are: Hutch, Bury, Chapman, Kelly, Koz, Lech and Druitt. so thats two out of my seven youve discounted (but at least its my last two lol)-any hope for the others and or do you think there are any others worthy of consideration?

honest question-Im seriously interested on your take about other suspects.

[Ally]

Hi Ally

which suspect/s do you find valid? You have ruled out Druitt, now Lechmere and Im curious which, if any, you think have any validity?

Full disclosure-
The whodunnit aspect of the case is admittedly my main draw to the subject, but Ive always said all the suspects are weak, some just less than others. and my first tier of least weak suspects, somewhat in order are: Hutch, Bury, Chapman, Kelly, Koz, Lech and Druitt. so thats two out of my seven youve discounted (but at least its my last two lol)-any hope for the others and or do you think there are any others worthy of consideration?

honest question-Im seriously interested on your take about other suspects.

Well, as I don't want to derail a Lechmere candidate thread with my waffling on about all other possibilities, I'm going to have a new Suspect thread created to discuss the full range of suspects, so as not to clutter up this one, if that's alright. I'll answer over there and move these two posts once the new thread is created.

[Ally]

Abby Normal Okay here's my thoughts, in no particularly cohesive monologue. I don't give credence to any of the the suspects, to be fair. I have different reasons for this. One these men are all dead and can't defend themselves, and while you cannot legally defame the dead, I've always found it kind of .... tacky? Distasteful? to discuss someone as being a murderer or other reprehensible thing if they are not important at all to history, and too dead to defend themselves. It's not that I am fully above doing it from time to time, obviously, it's just it leaves a bad taste in my mouth sometimes, when I think about it. I don't like rewriting a person's history, in absence of actual proof, whether that's with the victims or the suspects.

And I feel all too often, that people latch onto a NAME as the suspect, merely because they have a burning desire to be relevant, they WANT to solve the case, and in the absence of any actual ability to do that if it was an unknown local man, (which, in my opinion is the most likely scenario) they will grab onto ANY name that presents itself and attempt to fit that name into the frame. Because if it wasn't a name we know, well then... it's never going to be solved is it? And then how will we get our five minutes of fame? How will we prove our relevancy and superiority and worth?!! It CAN'T be a nobody! You know what I mean?

I've been likening the Lechmerians to fervent religious zealots, because I do believe they share similar traits. One can't live with the uncertainty of not knowing, so one has to attach oneself to a belief system and cling to it, lest they succumb to the existential dread of nihilism. And we can't have that.

Anyway, that's my relatively inconsequential thoughts, and of course, I would find it marvelously amusing if ever proof was offered. I'm just a total agnostic and don't believe it will ever happen.

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal Okay here's my thoughts, in no particularly cohesive monologue. I don't give credence to any of the the suspects, to be fair. I have different reasons for this. One these men are all dead and can't defend themselves, and while you cannot legally defame the dead, I've always found it kind of .... tacky? Distasteful? to discuss someone as being a murderer or other reprehensible thing if they are not important at all to history, and too dead to defend themselves. It's not that I am fully above doing it from time to time, obviously, it's just it leaves a bad taste in my mouth sometimes, when I think about it. I don't like rewriting a person's history, in absence of actual proof, whether that's with the victims or the suspects.

And I feel all too often, that people latch onto a NAME as the suspect, merely because they have a burning desire to be relevant, they WANT to solve the case, and in the absence of any actual ability to do that if it was an unknown local man, (which, in my opinion is the most likely scenario) they will grab onto ANY name that presents itself and attempt to fit that name into the frame. Because if it wasn't a name we know, well then... it's never going to be solved is it? And then how will we get our five minutes of fame? How will we prove our relevancy and superiority and worth?!! It CAN'T be a nobody! You know what I mean?

I've been likening the Lechmerians to fervent religious zealots, because I do believe they share similar traits. One can't live with the uncertainty of not knowing, so one has to attach oneself to a belief system and cling to it, lest they succumb to the existential dread of nihilism. And we can't have that.

Anyway, that's my relatively inconsequential thoughts, and of course, I would find it marvelously amusing if ever proof was offered. I'm just a total agnostic and don't believe it will ever happen.

fair enough! I doubt the case will ever be solved too but i hold onto a sliver of hope. but it would take something extraordinary, l know.

However, I do think the rippers name is probably among the hundreds that have been mentioned in connection with the case. whether as a suspect, or witness or even mentioned peripherally, perhaps a PC, I dont know. I think there is a slightly better than 50/50 chance that of the seven I mentioned hes one of them. Add all the other suspects, suspect/witnesses etc, like Barnett, richardson, bowyer, Donston, crow or maybe someone like the named insane medical student/s they were onto at some point or perhaps the named soldiers from the Tabram ID parade etc etc. I mean he cant be a total phantom can he?

so for me I think its a small chance, maybe like 10%, its a name weve never heard of. More of like finding the needle in the haystack as opposed to there is no needle in the haystack.

re the distastefulness in discussing someone being murderer,-I get your point-its a tough one. But In my case i discuss there validity as a suspect, I dont have anyone who I think was definitely the ripper so i dont accuse anyone outright-as I mentioned I think they are all weak, even my top tier list. and of my seven named least weak-Bury, Kelly and chapman were proved killers so they are fair game, Koz was a contemporary police suspect so hes fair game , Lech and Druitt probably innocent of anything so perhaps your point taken with them. hutch was at least a liar (IMHO) who tried to make dime off his dead "friends" tragic murder. but i could be wrong about that.

But this brings us to the victims who got no justice in life, none in death and none for their murders, so naming possible suspects, trying to solve the case dosnt bother me as much. plus I would be remiss if I didnt say the second main reason Im interested in the case is the humanity and humor and kindness i find in the victims in very desperate and tragic circs, gives me hope so to speak.

[Ally]

fair enough! I doubt the case will ever be solved too but i hold onto a sliver of hope. but it would take something extraordinary, l know.

However, I do think the rippers name is probably among the hundreds that have been mentioned in connection with the case. whether as a suspect, or witness or even mentioned peripherally, perhaps a PC, I dont know. ..... I mean he cant be a total phantom can he?

I mean, I think he can. I don't have any firm statistics on this, so don't take me as presenting this as fact and "this could never happen", this is just musing. But I was sitting here trying to think of serial murder cases where the perpetrator was known to the police in an innocent capacity, and recorded in the official papers, BEFORE they were caught or suspected as being the killer. And I really can't think of one. The only one that comes to mind is Gary Ridgeway, and he was known to the police as a suspect for ...decades? before being conclusively identified. I mean they collected DNA samples from him in like... 1980-something that didn't lead to his arrest until the 2000's. But he was always a suspect. So by that the only suspects would be Druitt, Kosminski, Ostrog... and I don't think any of them were the killer.
Christie, who was himself associated with the police MIGHT apply, but I don't know if his actual name appears in any of the records related to his victims BEFORE it was known he did the crime, in an innocent capacity, without being accused of the crime. Did he take a report? I don't know, I'll look it up later and decide in my own mind. But let's take Kemper. Kemper pumped police for information. If he had never been caught, and people were trying to look for the killer a hundred years later, would anyone find Kemper's name? We know he tried to glean information, but only because he was caught and cops testified that he'd tried to pump them for details, which they took as just generic ghoulish interest. None of them as far as I know wrote down a report that said "The creepy dude at the bar keeps asking where we are in the case...he's sus, let's look into him, eh?"

so for me I think its a small chance, maybe like 10%, its a name weve never heard of. More of like finding the needle in the haystack as opposed to there is no needle in the haystack.

And for the reasons above, I would do the exact inverse and say for me it's a 10% chance that the name was there. Kemper is kind of the perfect example. We know he actually talked to police a LOT to try and figure out where they were in the investigation. But if he hadn't eventually killed his mother, and basically run out of room to run, and had he kept on with killing strangers, and investigators looked back on the case years later, WOULD his name appear in any newspaper reports, official reports, would there be anything to tie him to the crimes years later? I think not and I think that's the most likely scenario for the Ripper as well. D'angelo's murder/crime spree spanned decades, and if not for DNA conclusively proving his identity, he wouldn't have been caught, and I don't believe his name ever appeared in any official report related to the crimes. I think it is far, far less likely that the name is there than that is. Not impossible, of course. But ...not likely.

But this brings us to the victims who got no justice in life, none in death and none for their murders, so naming possible suspects, trying to solve the case dosnt bother me as much. plus I would be remiss if I didnt say the second main reason Im interested in the case is the humanity and humor and kindness i find in the victims in very desperate and tragic circs, gives me hope so to speak.

For me there is never any justice for the murdered dead. There is only justice for their loved ones and families if the killer is caught and the societal justice of removing a threat from the streets. And as there is no one left alive who will find any real solace in the case being solved, and there is no one who will be spared a similar fate should the killer be named, for me it's merely an exercise in intellectual curiosity as opposed to a pursuit of justice. Everyone involved is long dead, and the time for justice is long past. But I totally understand how others believe in a "symbolic" kind of justice that transcends practicalities. It's just not one I personally attach much importance to, as symbolic tokens aren't particularly meaningful, to me personally. My opinion only, obviously, without any assertion it's the correct or right way to view it, just how I do.

[DJA]

Henry Gawen Sutton,MB,FRCP was Jack the Ripper.

There is enough circumstantial evidence to convict him.

[Aethelwulf]

Henry Gawen Sutton,MB,FRCP was Jack the Ripper.

There is enough circumstantial evidence to convict him.

List it out then....

[Wickerman]

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.

[GUT]

My pick is Mr U.N. Known a local nobody.

for personal reasons, my great uncle was insistent that out family either knew him, or knew who he was, I wish I had paid more attention now over 50 years later, I have a great interest in Druitt and am yet to see anything that makes him impossible. But would still place daylight between him and a local nobody.

[Scott Nelson]

Yes, correct Jon. In the case of David Cohen, he was confined less than a month after the MJK killing.

[DJA]

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?

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

The whole story goes back to Sutton joining Saint Leonard's Church as medical officer circa 1866 when Mary Ann Kelly was ~ 8 years old.

She was abused and her family probably blackmailed Sutton at the time.

Same year Nichols and Eddowes were his inpatients together with rheumatic fever at the London Hospital.

Imagine the three women in a hotel in 1888 with Nichols and Eddowes discussing their odd "doctor" in glowing terms when Kelly interrupts telling them her story and that Sutton was the reason RL Stevenson's novella was written.

Nichols moves next door to Eddowes who goes hopping.

Nichols is murdered near the London Hospital.

Eddowes returns hoping for a reward.

[John Wheat]

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.

What about William Henry Bury who buggered off to Edinburgh shortly after Mary Jane Kelly's murder. Then murdered his wife in a similar fashion to the C5?

Cheers John

[Ally]

What about William Henry Bury who buggered off to Edinburgh shortly after Mary Jane Kelly's murder. Then murdered his wife in a similar fashion to the C5?

Cheers John

I've always thought that it would be hard after Mary Kelly for a killer to de-escalate in a killing that would have been way more personal. To use the same example -Kemper- his mother was always his primary target, and her murder was just as vicious, as his previous. If Bury went from unknown victims to personal close victims, I would presume he wouldn't have been able to resist more extensive mutilations after showing increasing trending upwards in that department.

[John Wheat]

I've always thought that it would be hard after Mary Kelly for a killer to de-escalate in a killing that would have been way more personal. To use the same example -Kemper- his mother was always his primary target, and her murder was just as vicious, as his previous. If Bury went from unknown victims to personal close victims, I would presume he wouldn't have been able to resist more extensive mutilations after showing increasing trending upwards in that department.

Hi Ally

I agree and Bury probably struggled to not mutilate Ellen to more of a degree. However he couldn't just leave her on the streets. As it is Bury tried to pass Ellen's murder off as suicide. One problem with dismissing Bury is that copy cat killers rarely exist in real life. Also there aren't that many murderer's that mutilate after they've killed.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

The whole story goes back to Sutton joining Saint Leonard's Church as medical officer circa 1866 when Mary Ann Kelly was ~ 8 years old.

She was abused and her family probably blackmailed Sutton at the time.

Same year Nichols and Eddowes were his inpatients together with rheumatic fever at the London Hospital.

Imagine the three women in a hotel in 1888 with Nichols and Eddowes discussing their odd "doctor" in glowing terms when Kelly interrupts telling them her story and that Sutton was the reason RL Stevenson's novella was written.

Nichols moves next door to Eddowes who goes hopping.

Nichols is murdered near the London Hospital.

Eddowes returns hoping for a reward.

All supposition. No evidence.