Edward Buckley

[Jonathan Tye]

Johnathan, can I please confirm that alongside that 1903 mugshot of Edward, it actually states that he had a scar across the bridge of his nose and a scar on the right side of his neck?

And also that he was 48 when that photo was taken, but due to the alcohol and beard could pass himself off as a 64 year old?

Many thanks

RD

yes the file mentions scars but they are not particularly evident in the picture. I think the chronic alcaholism has aged him considerably.

[The Rookie Detective]

yes the file mentions scars but they are not particularly evident in the picture. I think the chronic alcaholism has aged him considerably.

Thanks for clarifying that, and I agree the alcohol definitely aged him.

Please may I check something else with you?

In April 1894, there was a labourer called Edward Buckley who went to a criminal trial for the alleged robbery from a man called Martin Sepp.
Edward and his alleged accomplice William Hudson were subsequently acquitted and discharged without conviction.

Can you confirm that this Buckley is a red herring and not the correct Buckley, and therefore can be discarded?

regards


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

There's another interesting clue regarding Edward Buckley.

On one of his official records, it is written "Presumed dead 18/05/39"

I know that you have confirmed his death as earlier than 1939, and so I was wondering what that date could be a reference to?

It seems to imply that a specific event happened on that particular date, on which the authorities believed he had died, or been killed.

The war didn't start until the September of the year and so it wasn't that.

What do you think is the meaning behind that date being written subsequently in larger ink directly onto his record?

In other words, WHY did they believe he was presumed dead on that specific date?

It appears to be written separately from the main text and therefore AFTER the printed record was formulated.

But why did someone posthumously write that EXACT date for HIM specifically?


Regards


RD

[jmenges]

Thanks for clarifying that, and I agree the alcohol definitely aged him.

Please may I check something else with you?

In April 1894, there was a labourer called Edward Buckley who went to a criminal trial for the alleged robbery from a man called Martin Sepp.
Edward and his alleged accomplice William Hudson were subsequently acquitted and discharged without conviction.

Can you confirm that this Buckley is a red herring and not the correct Buckley, and therefore can be discarded?

regards


RD

I’m not quite understanding why you continually ask questions when the answers appear in the JtRForums document and the article in Crime Through Time magazine? Do you have a reason to believe this 1894 Buckley is a red herring? If so state your reason.

JM

[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 Just an update for you - I have managed to trace back the origins of that Alliance news story - The original conviction could put Edward back on the streets the very day or day previous to Alice M murder - theres more for me to follow up and firm up but will update on here and JTr forums as soon as possibly .Its taken half a day to find it ! Jonathan

[Jonathan Tye]

There's another interesting clue regarding Edward Buckley.

On one of his official records, it is written "Presumed dead 18/05/39"

I know that you have confirmed his death as earlier than 1939, and so I was wondering what that date could be a reference to?

It seems to imply that a specific event happened on that particular date, on which the authorities believed he had died, or been killed.

The war didn't start until the September of the year and so it wasn't that.

What do you think is the meaning behind that date being written subsequently in larger ink directly onto his record?

In other words, WHY did they believe he was presumed dead on that specific date?

It appears to be written separately from the main text and therefore AFTER the printed record was formulated.

But why did someone posthumously write that EXACT date for HIM specifically?


Regards


RD

The pencilled marking on the record is the date the archivist updating the criminal records file closed the record . It does not relate to Edward it relates to the closure of that record .

re Edward Buckley robbery of Martin Sepp as Jonathan Menges states it is included in the research , the articles and even the interview with Richard Jones .

[The Rookie Detective]

I’m not quite understanding why you continually ask questions when the answers appear in the JtRForums document and the article in Crime Through Time magazine? Do you have a reason to believe this 1894 Buckley is a red herring? If so state your reason.

JM

Firstly, my sincere apologies for asking too many questions.

I am eager to learn and discover more about this case, and have NO intent to offend anyone.

I respect all views and opinions and everything this site stands for...always.

It is absolutely NOT my intent to cause any issues, or show any disrespect to ANY of the members of this forum, and the fact you have messaged me has highlighted that I have clearly crossed the line in wanting to seek additional information on Buckley.

It is also clear I have misjudged the friendly tone of the discussion and I will ensure to refrain from asking questions about Buckley any more.

If I may just say in my defense, that the reason why I believed it was okay to ask another question about an Edward Buckley (alleged to have assaulted My Sepp) as being a red herring in my previous post; is because Johnathan stated himself that Buckley wasn't a labourer, and so that contradicts the recorded data on the alleged assault on Mr Sepp.
I also don't have access to the JTR Forums because I received no response back from admin.

I am in the dark and this site is my only lifeline to the case.


I have no intent to cause offense or disruption to anyone on this site and I am frankly devastated and heartbroken that I appear to have caused offense to you..

I can only apologize wholeheartedly to you and this forum, and everyone else involved with the site.

I will take my leave for now and drown my sorrows in a bottle of wine.


Gutted that I have been vilified for asking too many questions, especially when my intentions are genuine and come from a place of sincerity and respect.


My apologies to Johnathan

My apologies to Jurriaan

My apologies to you and this site.


I am very very sorry for any offense caused


Signing out


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

The pencilled marking on the record is the date the archivist updating the criminal records file closed the record . It does not relate to Edward it relates to the closure of that record .

re Edward Buckley robbery of Martin Sepp as Jonathan Menges states it is included in the research , the articles and even the interview with Richard Jones .

Thank you for clarifying my final question to you.

You can be certain I will never ask another about Buckley.

Thank you for your continued patience and I am very sorry for any offense caused to you and Jurriaan.


Just as an aside,
I have been collating some additional data on one of Edward's sisters, which I believe you haven't got and which I believe may be of interest to you, but now that I have been reprimanded for asking too many questions, I will be unable to share that data in questioning or inquisitive form, meaning I can only submit data in statement form.
That may inadvertently change the tone of my posts; which is ironic, because by stating new data to you, it will come across as arrogant, and I want you to know that is NOT my intention.

I believe you have found the ripper, I genuinely do, and I think because of that, it has obviously caused issue, because it is felt I am asking too many questions. I can only apologize to you, but it is my inherent nature to ask you questions; because Buckley is YOUR find.

Heavy the head that wears the crown


Kindest regards


RD

[jmenges]

You don’t have to be a member of JtRForums to download the research document.

JM

[The Rookie Detective]

You don’t have to be a member of JtRForums to download the research document.

JM

Thank you kindly for clarifying that, I was unaware that I was permitted to do that without being a member.

I am clearly at fault and it's my inexperience and incompetence as a researcher that has impacted negatively on this thread.

That was completely unintentional.


I can only apologize to you and the team unreservedly and wholeheartedly for my amateur approach to asking questions, that I genuinely believed were valid queries and were in no way whatsoever intended to demean Johnathan and Jurriaan; who are clearly exceptionally knowledgeable and competent in their methods.and application.

Our of respect to Johnathan and Jurriaan; and for fear of being repremanded again, I will not be asking any further questions on "their" suspect, because then my integrity will remain intact and I can move on to my other list of suspects.

If permitted, I may start up another thread on Buckley myself, so that I could discuss him openly and legitimately, as would the case for any other suspect.
If not, then I would need to question why I would not be permitted to talk about Buckley elsewhere, because every other suspect has multiple threads and I'm sure you'll agree an an impartial mediator on this site that Buckley certainly shouldn't receive any special treatment or preference from researches who are deemed more knowledgeable.

With respect, I would urge them to understand that once they submit a suspect onto a communal thread,; intended for group discussion, that they open themselves up to questioning by proxy.
I of course fully acknowledge my own failings and incompetent approach to trying to ask sincere questions in the search for knowledge, but I would hope that others far more knowledgeable than myself wouldn't be punished in the same way for simply asking a question.

Ultimately, and slightly ironically, it has been my continued questioning (however annoying) that has kept this thread alive, because one thing that I have learned from the mass of amazing and brilliant minds on his site, is that a thread is only as good as the researcher who attempts to keep it alive...by asking questions.

Based on Johnathan and Jurriaan exceptional work on Buckley, I believe he is in the top 3 list of suspects...and so when the time comes and it's revealed that he was the ripper, at least I can put my hand up and say I tried so hard to keep this thread alive.

Johnathan and Jurriaan have almost certainly found the Ripper... and they know it.
Hence why my questioning methods that I apply to all other threads has been seemingly shut down on his thread.
Now i am afraid to talk about Buckley at all, which all feels vert unusual and completely disheartening considering all the months of research I have made on Buckley.

Despite being silenced on the whole being allowed to ask questions thing, I CAN however claim that I too was aware of Buckley months ago, and therefore have a legitimate seat at the "finding the Ripper" table when that particular dining table party commences.

I love and respect this thread more than anyone will ever appreciate and so I would like an opportunity to make amends by submitting to the table 2 more suspects...unheard of...and well worth a look...the difference being that anyone will have the freedom to ask me anything regardless of whether or not I have a "fully sourced" research paper on a completely different website

With utmost sincerity and respect to you.


RD

[Elamarna]

Firstly, my sincere apologies for asking too many questions.

I am eager to learn and discover more about this case, and have NO intent to offend anyone.

I respect all views and opinions and everything this site stands for...always.

It is absolutely NOT my intent to cause any issues, or show any disrespect to ANY of the members of this forum, and the fact you have messaged me has highlighted that I have clearly crossed the line in wanting to seek additional information on Buckley.

It is also clear I have misjudged the friendly tone of the discussion and I will ensure to refrain from asking questions about Buckley any more.

If I may just say in my defense, that the reason why I believed it was okay to ask another question about an Edward Buckley (alleged to have assaulted My Sepp) as being a red herring in my previous post; is because Johnathan stated himself that Buckley wasn't a labourer, and so that contradicts the recorded data on the alleged assault on Mr Sepp.
I also don't have access to the JTR Forums because I received no response back from admin.

I am in the dark and this site is my only lifeline to the case.


I have no intent to cause offense or disruption to anyone on this site and I am frankly devastated and heartbroken that I appear to have caused offense to you..

I can only apologize wholeheartedly to you and this forum, and everyone else involved with the site.

I will take my leave for now and drown my sorrows in a bottle of wine.


Gutted that I have been vilified for asking too many questions, especially when my intentions are genuine and come from a place of sincerity and respect.


My apologies to Johnathan

My apologies to Jurriaan

My apologies to you and this site.


I am very very sorry for any offense caused


Signing out


RD

RD,
I have received no email from you asking to join Jtrforums, please PM me.


Steve

[The Rookie Detective]

RD,
I have received no email from you asking to join Jtrforums, please PM me.


Steve

No email?!!




That explains it all...

And illustrates how I can't even send an email properly.

I am so sorry, I fell like such a moron now.


Thank you kindly for allowing me to apply, I will PM you shortly.

Sorry again

RD

[jmenges]

Thank you kindly for clarifying that, I was unaware that I was permitted to do that without being a member.

I am clearly at fault and it's my inexperience and incompetence as a researcher that has impacted negatively on this thread.

That was completely unintentional.


I can only apologize to you and the team unreservedly and wholeheartedly for my amateur approach to asking questions, that I genuinely believed were valid queries and were in no way whatsoever intended to demean Johnathan and Jurriaan; who are clearly exceptionally knowledgeable and competent in their methods.and application.

Our of respect to Johnathan and Jurriaan; and for fear of being repremanded again, I will not be asking any further questions on "their" suspect, because then my integrity will remain intact and I can move on to my other list of suspects.

If permitted, I may start up another thread on Buckley myself, so that I could discuss him openly and legitimately, as would the case for any other suspect.
If not, then I would need to question why I would not be permitted to talk about Buckley elsewhere, because every other suspect has multiple threads and I'm sure you'll agree an an impartial mediator on this site that Buckley certainly shouldn't receive any special treatment or preference from researches who are deemed more knowledgeable.

With respect, I would urge them to understand that once they submit a suspect onto a communal thread,; intended for group discussion, that they open themselves up to questioning by proxy.
I of course fully acknowledge my own failings and incompetent approach to trying to ask sincere questions in the search for knowledge, but I would hope that others far more knowledgeable than myself wouldn't be punished in the same way for simply asking a question.

Ultimately, and slightly ironically, it has been my continued questioning (however annoying) that has kept this thread alive, because one thing that I have learned from the mass of amazing and brilliant minds on his site, is that a thread is only as good as the researcher who attempts to keep it alive...by asking questions.

Based on Johnathan and Jurriaan exceptional work on Buckley, I believe he is in the top 3 list of suspects...and so when the time comes and it's revealed that he was the ripper, at least I can put my hand up and say I tried so hard to keep this thread alive.

Johnathan and Jurriaan have almost certainly found the Ripper... and they know it.
Hence why my questioning methods that I apply to all other threads has been seemingly shut down on his thread.
Now i am afraid to talk about Buckley at all, which all feels vert unusual and completely disheartening considering all the months of research I have made on Buckley.

Despite being silenced on the whole being allowed to ask questions thing, I CAN however claim that I too was aware of Buckley months ago, and therefore have a legitimate seat at the "finding the Ripper" table when that particular dining table party commences.

I love and respect this thread more than anyone will ever appreciate and so I would like an opportunity to make amends by submitting to the table 2 more suspects...unheard of...and well worth a look...the difference being that anyone will have the freedom to ask me anything regardless of whether or not I have a "fully sourced" research paper on a completely different website

With utmost sincerity and respect to you.


RD

Your post is just a tad bit dramatic isn’t it?

JM

[The Rookie Detective]

Your post is just a tad bit dramatic isn’t it?

JM

Yes, sorry...I deserved that.


RD

[jmenges]

We promise you’ll get a seat at the table just as soon as all of Ripperology agrees that Edward Buckley is the Ripper.

JM