Edward Buckley

[The Rookie Detective]

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

That's very fair and I accept that with humble grace.

Hopefully that table is "round" like King Arthur's was (allegedly)

RD

[Jurriaan Maessen]

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.

Just as a follow up to Lewis C's excellent question, Jonathan managed to actually find the London Daily Chronicle source article covering the "Henry Jones" incident, referenced at the bottom of the Alliance News article of April 27th.
The LDC article is actually dated 19 April 1889, not 14 April (as the Alliance News reference states), and is pretty much identical to the Illustrated Police News one of the 27th, which one would expect from syndication.

But even with the original publishing date pushed back some eight days, the original LDC article does not specify the date at which the incident took place.

In any case: great find, Jonathan!

[Jonathan Tye]

For those who may be interested in studying Edward further our intention was always to throw open the discussion and build upon our findings
.There are some key areas for anyone wanting to dig for something new .
1/ where was Edward from late August 1888 to March 1889?
2/ Can we find the fate of Frances Jones post May 1888
3/ is there any further evidence of Buckley operation outside London ( thinking here of the race track connection)
4/going back to the original attacks - can we document Edward from dec 1884 to April 1885 ?

Jonathan

[The Rookie Detective]

For those who may be interested in studying Edward further our intention was always to throw open the discussion and build upon our findings
.There are some key areas for anyone wanting to dig for something new .
1/ where was Edward from late August 1888 to March 1889?
2/ Can we find the fate of Frances Jones post May 1888
3/ is there any further evidence of Buckley operation outside London ( thinking here of the race track connection)
4/going back to the original attacks - can we document Edward from dec 1884 to April 1885 ?

Jonathan

Johnathan...

Concerning the incident above...

I have found the "Illustrated Police News" dated 27th April 1889.

You may already have it...

As you say, the original LDC publication is dated 19th April 1889.

The 27th was a Saturday
The 19th was a Friday

The article I've attached specifically mentions that the incident occurred on a THURSDAY NIGHT..and the appearance in the dock was on the following day, ergo, a Friday.


That means that either...

the incident occurred on Thursday 11th April
the appearance in the dock the following day on Friday 12th April...

OR...

the incident occurred on Thursday 18th April
the appearance in the dock the following day on Friday 19th April... (the same day it was reported in the LDC)


One of these options is correct


Here's the Illustrated Police News Article from Saturday 27th April 1889...

Please note the specific mention of the incident occurring on THURSDAY NIGHT




Hope that helps


Regards


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

And just to add a sprinkle of extra detail.

Friday 19th April 1889 was Good Friday and the start of the Bank Holiday Weekend.

May or may not be significant in terms of reporting dates and the Ripper's connection to being active over the Bank Holidays.

RD

[Lewis C]

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

Great find, Jonathan, thanks!

If it were to turn out that Edward went back out on the streets the day before the Alice M murder, that would be quite interesting indeed, since it has already been established that he was released from jail shortly before the Tabram murder.

[The Rookie Detective]

Great find, Jonathan, thanks!

If it were to turn out that Edward went back out on the streets the day before the Alice M murder, that would be quite interesting indeed, since it has already been established that he was released from jail shortly before the Tabram murder.

Absolutely agree, that would at least be a sign of a pattern of offending.

Another brilliant find Johnathan


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Here's something that may be of interest...

Edward Buckley...

GLOUCESTER Gaol Record...

September 30th 1874
aged 22 (born circa 1852)
fresh complexion
Fair hair
5ft 6"
Roman Catholic
Repeated Thief
GREY eyes
HAWKER
No fixed abode
Recently entered the area, ergo, not from the area.

Scar on BACK of neck (visibility unknown)
Scar on RIGHT thumb

Sister "Fanny" KELLY
Hope Street, Manchester





This is possibly the "Hawker" mentioned in "J and J's" research essay on Buckley.

I figured he had to start his criminal career somewhere...

Imagine a scenario where this is Buckley.

"Fanny" is NOT listed as one of Edward's sisters in J & J's research essay...

However...

Johnathan has already stated in his research paper that Frances Jones may have been called "Fanny"

Frances and Buckley related perhaps

Frances and MJK related perhaps

The research on Mary J Kelly, mentions her having been associated with a woman called (I believe) "BUCKL"

The Hawker Buckley above is connected to a woman called Kelly.

The blotchy man allegedly seen by Hutchinson may have been Buckley

Related through being an In-Law of some kind.

Straw-clutching hypothesis there, but why not

A certain letter alleged to have been written by the Ripper, highlighting him not wanting to get "Buckley"...i mean "Buckled"

Ha ha

Back to topic...

I have trawled through the research essay and can find no mention of where Buckley was in 1874.

Would be nice to have this "grey-eyed Hawker thief" Buckley, either ruled out; or considered on the possible pile.



RD

p.s. not a single question mark in my entire post.

[Abby Normal]

watching the interview now. very interesting, i like the emphasis on crimes committed pre 1888.

could he have been the man who attacked annie millwood or ada wilson?

also, Jonathan you said you found buckley while researching said Pre 1888 crimes let me ask you... how many men were arrested for attacking women with a knife from say 1885 to 1888? and or how common or rare was it?

i remember someone posted some interesting statistics a while back on women murdered by knife and there was a spike of about seven more in 1888 than in preceding and after years. i dont recall the exact number of murders but i do remember that it seemed actually pretty low. ie., women murdered by year via knife in London was low, or rare.

but how rare or common was it for women to be attacked by knife, but not necessarily murdered?

[Jonathan Tye]

watching the interview now. very interesting, i like the emphasis on crimes committed pre 1888.

could he have been the man who attacked annie millwood or ada wilson?

also, Jonathan you said you found buckley while researching said Pre 1888 crimes let me ask you... how many men were arrested for attacking women with a knife from say 1885 to 1888? and or how common or rare was it?

i remember someone posted some interesting statistics a while back on women murdered by knife and there was a spike of about seven more in 1888 than in preceding and after years. i dont recall the exact number of murders but i do remember that it seemed actually pretty low. ie., women murdered by year via knife in London was low, or rare.

but how rare or common was it for women to be attacked by knife, but not necessarily murdered?

Hi there - thanks for watching . It would be a lie if I was to tell you I could quantify or knew how many . However what I was struck by was the amount of violence men on men, men on women, and even women on women and men from within the Irish diaspora in that area. That is not to disparage that migrant community in any way . It is why I firmly believe that the murders originate and are born and bred in the area itself . There are examples of knives being used but I found the two attacks by Edward to be different in the way in which they were carried out . The threat to 'rip' starts to to come up as a term near 1888 but I think it originated in the press terms for the rip gangs in Liverpool and Manchester rather than Whitechapel . Attacks on women by men unknown with a knife are rare in the newspaper archives . Re the two possible early victims in 1888 he would have been released from prison just prior to the attack on Annie Millwood and been out for Ada Wilson - but other victims who have been looked at such as Emily Horsenail would have occurred whilst he was inside . The range of victims issue is one of the key parts of our subject. Regards - Jonathan

[Jonathan Tye]

Here's something that may be of interest...

Edward Buckley...

GLOUCESTER Gaol Record...

September 30th 1874
aged 22 (born circa 1852)
fresh complexion
Fair hair
5ft 6"
Roman Catholic
Repeated Thief
GREY eyes
HAWKER
No fixed abode
Recently entered the area, ergo, not from the area.

Scar on BACK of neck (visibility unknown)
Scar on RIGHT thumb

Sister "Fanny" KELLY
Hope Street, Manchester





This is possibly the "Hawker" mentioned in "J and J's" research essay on Buckley.

I figured he had to start his criminal career somewhere...

Imagine a scenario where this is Buckley.

"Fanny" is NOT listed as one of Edward's sisters in J & J's research essay...

However...

Johnathan has already stated in his research paper that Frances Jones may have been called "Fanny"

Frances and Buckley related perhaps

Frances and MJK related perhaps

The research on Mary J Kelly, mentions her having been associated with a woman called (I believe) "BUCKL"

The Hawker Buckley above is connected to a woman called Kelly.

The blotchy man allegedly seen by Hutchinson may have been Buckley

Related through being an In-Law of some kind.

Straw-clutching hypothesis there, but why not

A certain letter alleged to have been written by the Ripper, highlighting him not wanting to get "Buckley"...i mean "Buckled"

Ha ha

Back to topic...

I have trawled through the research essay and can find no mention of where Buckley was in 1874.

Would be nice to have this "grey-eyed Hawker thief" Buckley, either ruled out; or considered on the possible pile.



RD

p.s. not a single question mark in my entire post.

Hi I note the similarities with our Edward but this chap is born in Ireland and from Dublin . In the research we speculate on Edward serving time in the early in 1870's in wandsworth and Coldbath fields . There are records t look at but its matching the physical description that we are aware of . Regards Jonathan

[Abby Normal]

Hi there - thanks for watching . It would be a lie if I was to tell you I could quantify or knew how many . However what I was struck by was the amount of violence men on men, men on women, and even women on women and men from within the Irish diaspora in that area. That is not to disparage that migrant community in any way . It is why I firmly believe that the murders originate and are born and bred in the area itself . There are examples of knives being used but I found the two attacks by Edward to be different in the way in which they were carried out . The threat to 'rip' starts to to come up as a term near 1888 but I think it originated in the press terms for the rip gangs in Liverpool and Manchester rather than Whitechapel . Attacks on women by men unknown with a knife are rare in the newspaper archives . Re the two possible early victims in 1888 he would have been released from prison just prior to the attack on Annie Millwood and been out for Ada Wilson - but other victims who have been looked at such as Emily Horsenail would have occurred whilst he was inside . The range of victims issue is one of the key parts of our subject. Regards - Jonathan

thanks jonathan

" Attacks on women by men unknown with a knife are rare in the newspaper archives."

not by men unknown. any men known or otherwise. and not just in the newspaper archives, in police records.

what im getting at is have you in Buckley a rare occurance, and therefore a legit ripper suspect. or just one in a hundred (or thousand?) violent drunk men who attacked a woman with a knife?? i was always under the impression that while murdered woman by knife was rare, attacked by knife was fairly common.

[Jurriaan Maessen]

Just a general remark to let some air out of this thread.

Although it can be very tempting to play the good oldfashioned suspectology game in regards to Buckley, I would urge people to simply follow the facts wherever they may lead. Having someone unaccounted for during one or all of the murders by itself means precisely nothing.

[The Rookie Detective]

Just a general remark to let some air out of this thread.

Although it can be very tempting to play the good oldfashioned suspectology game in regards to Buckley, I would urge people to simply follow the facts wherever they may lead. Having someone unaccounted for during one or all of the murders by itself means precisely nothing.

I agree Jurriaan, and I am the worst for that sorry!

I do love a good hypothesis, and I'm aware that the idea of a random hypothesis can sometimes be construed as inappropriate and come across as particularly irritating.

With permission...I would like to ask a question...but need to phrase it in 'statement' form, so that I can avoid upsetting anyone.

With Buckley's various official/police/court records, there are some occasions when proven incidents involving Buckley have not been included (as stated and proven in your brilliant and extensively detailed research paper)... those omitted incidents then seem to appear depending on the specific record and date of said record (again stated clearly in your research paper)

That highlights the relative inconsistencies across the board concerning all of his official records, and on that basis, there is a very small chance that the reverse could be applied, ergo, data added to his official records incorrectly.

I would consider the possibility that; albeit small, in the context of his written recorded court/police data, due to the sheer number of offenses and various name changes and ages, some confirmed/alleged incidents may have been incorrectly attributed to him.

That may sound rather outlandish, but if incidents "proven" to be connected to Buckley are not listed in official documents at the time, then surely the reverse could be applied, meaning that some crimes committed by the ocean of other Red Herring Buckley's, could have been incorrectly added to his written police/court data.

In other words, when something is missing that shouldn't be, logic denotes that the reverse could be applied.



That said, the sheer wealth of data collated and submitted in your research paper, is completely brilliant and compelling and you should both be commended for your efforts.


Quite how you have managed to expertly unravel all of the complex and contradictory data in your exceptionally brilliant research paper, is beyond me and utterly remarkable, and a testament to your immense skills and resilience as researchers.


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi I note the similarities with our Edward but this chap is born in Ireland and from Dublin . In the research we speculate on Edward serving time in the early in 1870's in wandsworth and Coldbath fields . There are records t look at but its matching the physical description that we are aware of . Regards Jonathan

Thank you kindly for your response.

I completely agree with you.

Initially, I thought the Grey eyes and Hawker thing could be significant, but this chap doesn't feel right to me.

Feels good to flush him out though.


RD