Edward Buckley

[Lewis C]

There is one BIG detail that the video missed and which I feel is crucial to all of this.

But out of respect to the outstanding work by Johnathan Tye and Jurriaan, I am somewhat reluctant to say too much at this point, for fear of stepping on other people's toes.


All I can say is that I believe my own findings could add another dimension to this particular suspect.


Can anyone confirm the correct protocol and etiquette of this site?



Between a rock and a hard place.


Its lovely that people have watched the interview and taken an interest in Edward . Re the Dempsey street address in 1882 I am wondering if you are referring to the old bailey trial on the assault by Jon Donavon ? The trouble is he uses Dempsey street ten years apart suggesting rather it is an address of convenience . I had noted the board school connection with addresses but cant see where that would actually lead unless he had a connected role . The Devonshire street attack and that locked door I agree is massively significant its covered in depth in the forums and crime through time article . I am really intrigued by the deaths of his mother when ten or eleven ? and the sister was that elizabeth . ann or Alice ? Re your finds your are certainly not stepping on any toes its all ours to share and grow and would love to hear your input .

regards Jonathan

Hi Jonathan and welcome to Casebook. Welcome to Jurriaan too.

Your paper argues that Henry Jones was an alias for Edward Buckley, and quotes a newspaper from 27 April 1889 that Jones was sent to jail for 3 months. Alice McKenzie was killed on 17 July 1889. Do you have any info about when Jones was released from jail or can you say whether or not he was in jail when McKenzie was murdered?

[Jurriaan Maessen]

Hi Jonathan and welcome to Casebook. Welcome to Jurriaan too.

Your paper argues that Henry Jones was an alias for Edward Buckley, and quotes a newspaper from 27 April 1889 that Jones was sent to jail for 3 months. Alice McKenzie was killed on 17 July 1889. Do you have any info about when Jones was released from jail or can you say whether or not he was in jail when McKenzie was murdered?

I do not know the date when he was released. However, the Alliance News article (1889, "Assaults by a Lame Man", Alliance News, 27 April) appears to reference a 14 April London Daily Chronicle article, allowing for the possibility the incident occurred some time before publication on the 27th.



I have scoured the (London) Daily Chronicle on and around the 14th, but wasn't able to find a corresponding article, so alas I can't confirm it at this point. Should you (or anybody else) like to attempt a search into the mysterious 14th of April article referenced, we would be most anxious to see what you come up with.

In addition we were also unable to find a corresponding Police Court record mentioning either a Henry Jones or Edward Buckley in April of 1889. As I pointed out in the JTR Forums article though, the Illustrated Police News, also on the 27th, adds that this Henry Jones of Dempsey Street, brother to Thomas Buckley, is "(...) rightly named Buckley".

Both the given abode and the purported kinship to Thomas Buckley, makes us fairly confident the lame man described is highly likely to be Edward.

As we are not in possesion of a correct date of the incident (nor a record listing the conviction) the release date is entirely uncertain. But even if it was, any connection to the Alice McKenzie murder would remain highly speculative in any case.

[Lewis C]

I do not know the date when he was released. However, the Alliance News article (1889, "Assaults by a Lame Man", Alliance News, 27 April) appears to reference a 14 April London Daily Chronicle article, allowing for the possibility the incident occurred some time before publication on the 27th.



I have scoured the (London) Daily Chronicle on and around the 14th, but wasn't able to find a corresponding article, so alas I can't confirm it at this point. Should you (or anybody else) like to attempt a search into the mysterious 14th of April article referenced, we would be most anxious to see what you come up with.

In addition we were also unable to find a corresponding Police Court record mentioning either a Henry Jones or Edward Buckley in April of 1889. As I pointed out in the JTR Forums article though, the Illustrated Police News, also on the 27th, adds that this Henry Jones of Dempsey Street, brother to Thomas Buckley, is "(...) rightly named Buckley".

Both the given abode and the purported kinship to Thomas Buckley, makes us fairly confident the lame man described is highly likely to be Edward.

As we are not in possesion of a correct date of the incident (nor a record listing the conviction) the release date is entirely uncertain. But even if it was, any connection to the Alice McKenzie murder would remain highly speculative in any case.

Thank you Jurriaan. I agree that it would be highly speculative. I would view the connection as possible simply because I think there's a good chance, I'd say about 50/50, that McKenzie is a Ripper victim, so any Ripper suspect is a suspect in her murder unless it is known that he couldn't have killed her, as with Bury, Cohen, Druitt, and Tumblety.

[The Rookie Detective]

Based on his official criminal record, it would appear he was not the same man described as "the lame man" above.

This incident does not appear on his record, BUT it COULD have still been Edward and may have been one of his less serious "summary" offenses.

He committed no fewer than 15 offenses deemed serious enough to go through the court system and no fewer than 38 other "summary offenses" that were of a less serious nature but still part of his overall criminal record.

However, only 2 of the 14 "serious" offenses were committed PRIOR to the ripper murders; the most serious being one of the knife "wounding" assaults he committed on Frances Jones, for which he served 12 months.

What's particularly odd though is that despite Edward having attacked Frances Jones with a knife on at LEAST 2 separate occasions, I can only find ONE attack listed in 1885.
I am confused as to why because we know from Johnathan and Jurriaan's in-depth research on Buckley (that far exceeds my own in every way) that Edward attacked Frances at least 3 times, all of which are documented in multiple newspaper reports.

Once with a knife in the street, stabbing her in the abdomen
Once with a knife in her room, cutting her face from her nose to her left cheek
Once with his fists in the pub in front of multiple witnesses.

I am not sure why it appears he only served time for one of those offenses.

It's probably my error though.

Ultimately, in 1909, it would appear that the courts had finally had enough of this rogue Buckley, and sentenced him to his longest stint in prison, a 21-month hard labour sentence in Wormwood Scrubs from August 1909 for stealing a purse.

He therefore spent time in Coldbath Fields, Pentonville in North London, and then Wormwood Scrubs in West London.

Interestingly, there's also appears to be some confusion over his multiple aliases...

Edward Buckley
John Jones
Henry Smith
George Smith
John Brown..

But I can't find Henry Anderson?

What's peculiar is that when Edward was sentenced in 1885, serving time with Daniel Sullivan, there was ANOTHER man sentenced at the same time as Edward, namely, Henry Anderson.

Henry Anderson was very much a different person, and so did Edward use Henry's identity after 1885?

What's also interesting is that the Edward Buckley I found (not the same Buckley researched by Johnathan and Jurriaan) was a twin who had a brother called Thomas John Buckley.
Their father Thomas was a TAILOR by trade
And their mother was called Jane Isabella BROWN.


I am also now wondering whether the Edward Buckley I identified (the twin of Thomas John) was perhaps related to the correct Edward Buckley found and researched extensively by Johnathan and Jurriaan.

I say this because of the use of the name Brown and the connection to the occupation of Tailor.

It's quite astonishing how Johnathan and Jurriaan have been able to find and pin down their Edward Buckley due to so many irregularities in the data, including,

his age; his criminal record suggests he was born between 1840 and 1844, yet the press reports have him as at least a decade younger.
his occupation; his criminal record clearly has him stated as a Tailor, and yet most of the press reports have him as a Cigar Maker.
his appearance; according to his record, he had a deep scar across the bridge of his nose and a scar on the right side of his neck, and yet there's no mention of a scar on his left hand caused by him having been stabbed by Donovan years previous.

It is a testament to both Johnathan and Jurriaan's brilliant efforts that they have found such an excellent new person of interest in the Ripper case and their perseverance in sifting through the complexities of this particular person of interest.

Johnathan is absolutely correct when he highlights that it's the specific attacks on Frances Jones that make him stand out as a potential Ripper suspect, without which he was just another random violent drunk and of little significance to the Ripper case.



RD

[The Rookie Detective]

May I ask about the age discrepancy between Edward's personal information on his photo fit, i.e. making him born sometime between 1840 and 1845, compared with the majority of other data sources that suggest he was born between 1852 - 1855?

That's at least a 7-year differential between the separate pieces of written data, and I'm not sure why there is such a gap?

There's also a discrepancy between his stated work occupation, ergo, a Tailor OR a Cigar Maker.... This may of course be a timing issue and he may have changed his occupation from Cigar Maker to Tailor deliberately, or he could have lied about both perhaps?

There's just something unusual about it all.


RD

[Jurriaan Maessen]

May I ask about the age discrepancy between Edward's personal information on his photo fit, i.e. making him born sometime between 1840 and 1845, compared with the majority of other data sources that suggest he was born between 1852 - 1855?

That's at least a 7-year differential between the separate pieces of written data, and I'm not sure why there is such a gap?

There's also a discrepancy between his stated work occupation, ergo, a Tailor OR a Cigar Maker.... This may of course be a timing issue and he may have changed his occupation from Cigar Maker to Tailor deliberately, or he could have lied about both perhaps?

There's just something unusual about it all.


RD

At the risk of repeating myself, allow me to again refer you to the article on JTR Forums (PDF), page 45 to be exact:

https://www.jtrforums.com/articles/609627-introducing-edward-buckley-life-and-crimes-of-a-whitechapel-fiend-pdf-attachment-version

[Tom_Wescott]

I wanted to congratulate Jurriaan and Jonathan on a mammoth piece of research. I had a great time talking with them both today about their work and all matters Ripperological. If Jose Oranto's ears were burning it's because all of us were saying his name and agreeing that he is a phenomenal researcher and the field is fortunate to have him. I can't wait to see what new discoveries and insights all three of you produce in the future.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Rookie Detective]

At the risk of repeating myself, allow me to again refer you to the article on JTR Forums (PDF), page 45 to be exact:

https://www.jtrforums.com/articles/6...chment-version

Ah yes, thank you for directing me to that particular page, I appreciate you taking the time to do that, and my apologies for your feeling you've had to repeat yourself.

My concern regarding your data; was the idea that he could be 33 in 1887, and then be 64 in 1903. That's a 31-year jump in just 16 years, ergo, almost double.

Have you ever considered the idea that you're actually identifying a father and son?

The younger cigar-making son aged 34 at the time of the ripper murders who attacked Frances Jones on multiple occasions, and the older habitual 64-year-old drunk, the tailor with a scar on his nose and neck who you have in the photo fit and was the same man found drunk in Fashion Street by his son Edward and Thomas?

Father and Son?

Names can be changed continuously, but an age differential of 16 years (a minimum of 7) is very peculiar.

I am aware that you have said that you have had to look past some of those age issues, but I believe that despite your excellent reasoning highlighted on page 45 of your research essay, there are still questions to be asked regarding the age gap.

Whether you repeat yourself or not, there will always be questions to be answered IF the answer given doesn't satisfy the inquiries made by the person asking the question.

That's just my humble opinion of course, and worth very little...but the idea that you repeat your claim; doesn't necessarily mean that those claims have to be accepted without said claims being scrutinized and questioned in the first place.

Your research is undoubtedly exceptional and in-depth, but your statement on page "45" doesn't actually answer the question of WHY there's such an age differential between Cigar maker Buckley and Tailor Buckley?

If Edward was able to fake his age by over a decade and his 1903 claim of being aged 64, was proven to be false, then that would explain it.

However, without evidence to explain how he can jump 31 years in just 17, you leave yourself open to legitimate scrutiny and questioning from those of us who need to find an answer to the inaccuracies, rather than just look past them.

Did he "act" the part?

As an aside; I am aware that the Edward Buckley I found born in Whitechapel in 1853, is not the same man you have researched extensively. I also know that you have already dismissed him because his antecedents are different...but he had a father who was a tailor and a brother called Thomas who lived in Morgan Street...and so I would just like to ask again...(and give my reciprocal apologies for feeling like I too have to repeat myself)...

What evidence do you have to discard the Edward Buckley born in 1853? (my Edward so to speak)

In other words, could you have inadvertently merged 2 or 3 different men together, or mistakenly written off some data that may be relevant to your Edward Buckley?

(Please note...I know you have an extensive essay, because I've read it, and so rather than repeat your answer of asking me to refer to your essay, please answer on this forum which is set up to ask those exact kinds of questions)

In other words, your research essay doesn't answer everything and so using it for reference; while a brilliant source of information, still doesn't answer all the questions that need to be asked/answered.


The ABC of investigative researching into true crime...


Accept nothing
Believe Nobody
Challenge everything


Regards


RD

[Jonathan Tye]

I wanted to congratulate Jurriaan and Jonathan on a mammoth piece of research. I had a great time talking with them both today about their work and all matters Ripperological. If Jose Oranto's ears were burning it's because all of us were saying his name and agreeing that he is a phenomenal researcher and the field is fortunate to have him. I can't wait to see what new discoveries and insights all three of you produce in the future.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thank you Tom we really enjoyed it and your informed insights

[Jonathan Tye]

May I ask about the age discrepancy between Edward's personal information on his photo fit, i.e. making him born sometime between 1840 and 1845, compared with the majority of other data sources that suggest he was born between 1852 - 1855?

That's at least a 7-year differential between the separate pieces of written data, and I'm not sure why there is such a gap?

There's also a discrepancy between his stated work occupation, ergo, a Tailor OR a Cigar Maker.... This may of course be a timing issue and he may have changed his occupation from Cigar Maker to Tailor deliberately, or he could have lied about both perhaps?

There's just something unusual about it all.


RD

As previously stated we have two prison records , a death certificate , and next of kin release records that prove we have tracked the correct Edward .It is in both articles written by Jurriaan and myself and not been questioned by researchers we would consider at the top of their game . Jonathan

[Jonathan Tye]

Hi Jonathan and welcome to Casebook. Welcome to Jurriaan too.

Your paper argues that Henry Jones was an alias for Edward Buckley, and quotes a newspaper from 27 April 1889 that Jones was sent to jail for 3 months. Alice McKenzie was killed on 17 July 1889. Do you have any info about when Jones was released from jail or can you say whether or not he was in jail when McKenzie was murdered?

Hi Lewis you make a great point here . That report from April refers to an earlier report - we would dearly love to be able to find it . We have no doubts that we have the right Edward here using that alias - the question is the report of the 14th April was that the date he was imprisoned or was it later .Like you say it has a bearing on Alice and I favour her as a victim . Thank you for taking time to read the research - Jonathan

[New Ford Shunt]

My concern regarding your data; was the idea that he could be 33 in 1887, and then be 64 in 1903. That's a 31-year jump in just 16 years, ergo, almost double.

Have you ever considered the idea that you're actually identifying a father and son?

The younger cigar-making son aged 34 at the time of the ripper murders who attacked Frances Jones on multiple occasions, and the older habitual 64-year-old drunk, the tailor with a scar on his nose and neck who you have in the photo fit and was the same man found drunk in Fashion Street by his son Edward and Thomas?

Father and Son?

Names can be changed continuously, but an age differential of 16 years (a minimum of 7) is very peculiar.

If we strip away all the various aspects of research and return to where this subject started, namely the article posted by Chris Scott from The Times on the 5th October 1885, we can see that we have the basis for the Edward Buckley investigation:

"Edward Buckley, a cigar-maker, of 14 Helmsley-street, Whitechapel, was charged with violently cutting and wounding Frances Jones, of 5, Devonshire-street, Mile-end...Sergeant Adams...went to 14, Hanbury-street, which was a coffee shop [where in the top room he found Edward Buckley]"

Everything stems from there. That is ground zero for Buckley. From that information we know that Edward Buckley is listed in the court records from October into November 1885 as being a 33-year-old cigar maker who is given a 12 month custodial sentence for 'maliciously wounding' Frances Jones. He is also listed as having a conviction for drunkenness in May of that year and of wounding in September 1885. These established facts can therefore be cross-referenced with any other information that comes our way. Thirty-three years of age puts his DOB as 1852. But looking at another Edward Buckley court appearance, this time in April 1887 we see this Edward giving his DOB as 1854, but he is still listed as a cigar maker and there is also a cross reference to Buckley's October 1885 conviction for wounding - we can therefore be almost certain these are the same Edward Buckley's. If we then look at the 1909 court appearance as detailed in Jurriaan's excellent article (page 45) we can see that an Edward Buckley, tailor, aged 65 (1844) has a conviction for wounding dating to the 26th October 1885 where he was given 12 months in gaol. This therefore links Edward Buckley with a 10 year discrepancy in age and in occupation but in all likelihood are the same Edward Buckley.

If we bring in workhouse records and the 1911 census we can see that he often gave his DOB as 1847 - assuming of course that there wasn't another Edward Buckley, cigar maker, living in the Stepney/Whitechapel area during this time. So we have many examples of Edward being fluid with his age.

If we look at two of the workhouse records for Edward Buckley, both along a similar vein, on in January 1917, we have an Edward Buckley who was born in 1847 and who has listed his profession as 'hawker'. He has, however, give his next of kin as his sister Mary Ann Clark of 19 Brunswick Street, Shoreditch. Now if we work that back and look at the various options for a 'Mary Ann Buckley' who married a Clark and was living at 19 Brunswick Street we come up with the 1861 census record where there is a Daniel Buckley, married to a Mary ann Buckley, whose children include an Ann Buckley (b 1850) and an Edward Buckley (b 1855). Daniel's occupation on the census and his daughter Mary Ann's marriage certificate (b 1857 to Daniel and Mary Ann) to a Frederick Clark is cigar maker. All the family, whereever the evidence takes you, remain either evidentially or via newspaper reports firmly in the East End except for John Buckley, Edward's brother, who moves to the Lambeth area with his wife.

[/QUOTE]

Your research is undoubtedly exceptional and in-depth, but your statement on page "45" doesn't actually answer the question of WHY there's such an age differential between Cigar maker Buckley and Tailor Buckley?

If Edward was able to fake his age by over a decade and his 1903 claim of being aged 64, was proven to be false, then that would explain it.

However, without evidence to explain how he can jump 31 years in just 17, you leave yourself open to legitimate scrutiny and questioning from those of us who need to find an answer to the inaccuracies, rather than just look past them.

As an aside; I am aware that the Edward Buckley I found born in Whitechapel in 1853, is not the same man you have researched extensively. I also know that you have already dismissed him because his antecedents are different...but he had a father who was a tailor and a brother called Thomas who lived in Morgan Street...and so I would just like to ask again...(and give my reciprocal apologies for feeling like I too have to repeat myself)...

What evidence do you have to discard the Edward Buckley born in 1853? (my Edward so to speak)

In other words, could you have inadvertently merged 2 or 3 different men together, or mistakenly written off some data that may be relevant to your Edward Buckley?

[/QUOTE]

The Edward Buckley you refer toseems to have been a dock labourer according to the 1901 census who died 23 August 1901 at Stepney workhouse from Phthisis. There is nothing at all evidentially to link him to the original source of the investigation, ie the 1885 press report. The Edward Buckley who Jonathan and Jurriaan have researched however does, and it's a strong, clear case.

I hope this clarifies matters for you.

[The Rookie Detective]

If we strip away all the various aspects of research and return to where this subject started, namely the article posted by Chris Scott from The Times on the 5th October 1885, we can see that we have the basis for the Edward Buckley investigation:

"Edward Buckley, a cigar-maker, of 14 Helmsley-street, Whitechapel, was charged with violently cutting and wounding Frances Jones, of 5, Devonshire-street, Mile-end...Sergeant Adams...went to 14, Hanbury-street, which was a coffee shop [where in the top room he found Edward Buckley]"

Everything stems from there. That is ground zero for Buckley. From that information we know that Edward Buckley is listed in the court records from October into November 1885 as being a 33-year-old cigar maker who is given a 12 month custodial sentence for 'maliciously wounding' Frances Jones. He is also listed as having a conviction for drunkenness in May of that year and of wounding in September 1885. These established facts can therefore be cross-referenced with any other information that comes our way. Thirty-three years of age puts his DOB as 1852. But looking at another Edward Buckley court appearance, this time in April 1887 we see this Edward giving his DOB as 1854, but he is still listed as a cigar maker and there is also a cross reference to Buckley's October 1885 conviction for wounding - we can therefore be almost certain these are the same Edward Buckley's. If we then look at the 1909 court appearance as detailed in Jurriaan's excellent article (page 45) we can see that an Edward Buckley, tailor, aged 65 (1844) has a conviction for wounding dating to the 26th October 1885 where he was given 12 months in gaol. This therefore links Edward Buckley with a 10 year discrepancy in age and in occupation but in all likelihood are the same Edward Buckley.

If we bring in workhouse records and the 1911 census we can see that he often gave his DOB as 1847 - assuming of course that there wasn't another Edward Buckley, cigar maker, living in the Stepney/Whitechapel area during this time. So we have many examples of Edward being fluid with his age.

If we look at two of the workhouse records for Edward Buckley, both along a similar vein, on in January 1917, we have an Edward Buckley who was born in 1847 and who has listed his profession as 'hawker'. He has, however, give his next of kin as his sister Mary Ann Clark of 19 Brunswick Street, Shoreditch. Now if we work that back and look at the various options for a 'Mary Ann Buckley' who married a Clark and was living at 19 Brunswick Street we come up with the 1861 census record where there is a Daniel Buckley, married to a Mary ann Buckley, whose children include an Ann Buckley (b 1850) and an Edward Buckley (b 1855). Daniel's occupation on the census and his daughter Mary Ann's marriage certificate (b 1857 to Daniel and Mary Ann) to a Frederick Clark is cigar maker. All the family, whereever the evidence takes you, remain either evidentially or via newspaper reports firmly in the East End except for John Buckley, Edward's brother, who moves to the Lambeth area with his wife.

[/QUOTE]

The Edward Buckley you refer toseems to have been a dock labourer according to the 1901 census who died 23 August 1901 at Stepney workhouse from Phthisis. There is nothing at all evidentially to link him to the original source of the investigation, ie the 1885 press report. The Edward Buckley who Jonathan and Jurriaan have researched however does, and it's a strong, clear case.

I hope this clarifies matters for you.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely exceptional post.

Concise and explanatory.

A well balanced and definitive explanation and I appreciate you taking the time to formulate that for me.

As I said previously, I don't mind being proved wrong because the truth of the case is more important to me, and I've never been one for egotistical people.

You have managed to explain more in one post than was witnessed in nearly 7000 posts on the ridiculous Richardson thread.

Bravo to you and I admire your approach.


Regards

RD

[New Ford Shunt]

If anyone wishes to, I have been doing a family tree for both Frances and Edward on Ancestry. They are public so take a look, if you think something is wrong, do let me know:

Cushion Family Tree https://www.ancestry.co.uk/invite-ui...P1ge5hvN4w4fY=

Jones Family Tree https://www.ancestry.co.uk/invite-ui...GS1eToSPG0GUM=

As with any research, it may well expand/alter/amend in the future.

And RD, thank you for your kind words.

Suzie

[The Rookie Detective]

If we bring in workhouse records and the 1911 census we can see that he often gave his DOB as 1847 - assuming of course that there wasn't another Edward Buckley, cigar maker, living in the Stepney/Whitechapel area during this time. So we have many examples of Edward being fluid with his age.

If we look at two of the workhouse records for Edward Buckley, both along a similar vein, on in January 1917, we have an Edward Buckley who was born in 1847 and who has listed his profession as 'hawker'. He has, however, give his next of kin as his sister Mary Ann Clark of 19 Brunswick Street, Shoreditch. Now if we work that back and look at the various options for a 'Mary Ann Buckley' who married a Clark and was living at 19 Brunswick Street we come up with the 1861 census record where there is a Daniel Buckley, married to a Mary ann Buckley, whose children include an Ann Buckley (b 1850) and an Edward Buckley (b 1855). Daniel's occupation on the census and his daughter Mary Ann's marriage certificate (b 1857 to Daniel and Mary Ann) to a Frederick Clark is cigar maker. All the family, whereever the evidence takes you, remain either evidentially or via newspaper reports firmly in the East End except for John Buckley, Edward's brother, who moves to the Lambeth area with his wife.

.

The only additional point I would make is this;

The entirety of this section relies on having the correct Buckley from the 1911 census.

As long as the "Hawker" you mentioned above is DEFINITELY the correct Buckley (based on the same process you have explained with the prison records being matched to the assaults on Frances Jones) then it is then absolutely and definitively watertight from every angle possible.

Is there proof that the 1911 census Buckley is correct? It appears to be the only area that isn't conclusive.

Every other aspect has been completely explained and proven apart from the 1911 census (and 1917) "Hawker" link that has been made.

Do the next of kin details on his prison releases match the data given by the Hawker Buckley, ergo, his sister's name and address?

RD