Favoured Suspect...

[Mike J. G.]

Hi Mike,

Although, of course, you’re right that we shouldn’t expect Abberline to have understood and considered the differences in goals of each series, I don’t think any of what I wrote depends on Abberline’s knowledge of serial killers (or lack thereof).


To be clear, my point wasn’t directed at Abberline or anybody back then, I was just reacting to your “I'm not as convinced that the M.O. of Chapman's domestic murders are a problem for him being a candidate for the Ripper.” and “He couldn't slice up his missus and hope to get away with being the Ripper if he was caught,...”So, your view, not Abberline’s.

I can understand his view, knowing so little about serial killers, but I still think you’re stepping over what satisfied the Ripper a bit too quickly. My view, but it’s just that, is that the Ripper chose the right type of victims to satisfy his morbid desire: women he, probably, didn’t know and found cruising the streets in the middle of the night. So, the chosing of his victims was guided by his desire.

The way I see it is that, if the Ripper was Chapman, then he let go of the desire that drove him in 1888 and it was some other perversion driving him between 1897 and 1902. I don’t think that he was still driven by his desire to cut his victims open by that time and thought: well, I can’t do that with my wife, so, instead, I feed her some poison and watch her die a slow and agonizing death. If he was still driven by the desire that drove him in 1888, then I’d expect him to have chosen victims whom he could cut open. Or that he would have led his wives to some place he had no particular or clear connection with to kill, mutilate & leave them one by one. But, by that, I’m not saying that we can totally rule out Chapman – just like yourself.

Cheers,
Frank

Hiya, Frank. If we're supposing that Chapman was the Ripper, then him poisoning his wives or lovers was merely a relatively quiet way in which to dispatch them, as opposed to him getting his kicks doing what he enjoyed doing to unknowns, which was mutilation after death. So getting a thrill from watching them die slowly may not have been the actual goal, but merely a "bonus," if you will.

Whether Chapman got any kicks from poisoning his lovers or not, who knows, he probably did, but it may have been a happy accident, as opposed to his intention, as his real intention seems to have been to simply rid himself of them quietly. If he was the Ripper, he couldn't rip them up.

Abberline seems to be going for Chapman solely because he was murdering women in the same area, but he did seem fully aware of the differences in each series, and he stated as much, pointing out that it was the similarities which drew his suspicion, and adding that Chapman had reportedly threatened a previous lover with a blade, so he wasn't blind to the difference between the two killers.

My main purpose for backing up Abberline here is purely because another poster (Mortis?) was boldly claiming that Abberline was a terrible inspector simply because he thought it might be Chapman, which is a bit unfair, IMO, and a bit naive.

Like I've said, though, I'm not particularly one for promoting Chapman, but I do feel that him, Bury and Kelly are good suspects, not that that really means a lot!

Cheers

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, he’s a great suspect. Or is he?



“Don't tell me you swallowed the blood 'evidence' of Fisherman?!”




“Lechmerians want us to believe anything they say,”




“It must be Lechmere's magic,”




“I like to start my daywork by killing cutting and mutilating someone around”




“Fisherman is selling the idea that if Mizen went to the body and found no policeman there,”




“And look how the Lechmerians contradict themselves!”




“This whole theory is based ubon the ignorance of all other parties involved, one has to be an imbecile to believe such nonsense”




“No Fish, that will not work, try harder!”




“Caz post has set an end to this fishy tunnel under logic and facts that you are trying to escape through”




“I read some fairy tales that were much better than this.”




“Sophistry: the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving”




“Lechmere wouldn't have lied to Mizen, then he is risking finding the police over his shoulder.”




“He could have run away, but the Lechmerians want us to believe he injected himself intentionally in the events after killing Nichols,”




“A very disturbed theory, with zero consistency.”




”Lechmerians have failed to bring any single evidence or shred of a clue to justify their claims, they even went to the extreme phantasy and presented Lechmere as the solo ripper-torso murderer of his time, aka Lechmerianismus!”




“If a lechmerian told me: look at Lechmere, all of his actions whithout any single exception were very normal, doesn't that seem suspicious to you? Then I would say he has a better argument than anything was ever produced by Fisherman and his company.”




“If he chose to run away no one ever will be talking now about him, and Paul could have very likely missed the body.”




“Thats why this is a very weak theory, one has first to believe of Lechmere guilt then try to find excuses to keep the flame on:




“Endless excuses to fit Lechmere in.




“But the Lechmerians remained in their subzero state of denial.”

[The Baron]

The geography by itself puts him in the Premier League. Alone.

Even better, there is an eyewitness who spotted him alone in a dark alley near a freshly killed and mutilated woman.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Uh, I referred specifically and solely to 'the geography'. The above outpouring doesn't engage with that. Why didn't you respond to what was written? Did you not understand my meaning?

M.

The geography means nothing. According to your thinking if a suspect is local to the murder sites it makes him guilty. You are the one who said “solved” so please don’t make any claim to rational thinking. Every single point against Cross has been thoroughly debunked by people who aren’t blind fan club members. He’s an appallingly weak suspect with nothing in his favour apart from the fact that he was alive in the area. The case against him has been built dishonestly. We can safely dismiss him.

[Mark J D]

His ‘being there’ is all there is. John Davis was there too. Alone with a recently killed Chapman. He wasn’t the killer either. Only the gullible or a child could think that Cross was the killer. An appalling, embarrassing suspect. When a suspect requires the manipulation of evidence, 100% deliberate falsification of the evidence, silly imaginary scams, contortions of the English language, deliberate misinterpretations and a list of bizarre and fatuous things that supposedly point to guilt then you know that something fishy is going on. This is a cottage industry created by two men for a reason. Their own benefit. Cross even has his own fan club tv channel - I’m waiting for the merchandise to be advertised. The whole shameful, dishonest, wretched debacle does nothing but bring the subject into disrepute.

Uh, I referred specifically and solely to 'the geography'. The above outpouring doesn't engage with that. Why didn't you respond to what was written? Did you not understand my meaning?

M.

[John Wheat]

His ‘being there’ is all there is. John Davis was there too. Alone with a recently killed Chapman. He wasn’t the killer either. Only the gullible or a child could think that Cross was the killer. An appalling, embarrassing suspect. When a suspect requires the manipulation of evidence, 100% deliberate falsification of the evidence, silly imaginary scams, contortions of the English language, deliberate misinterpretations and a list of bizarre and fatuous things that supposedly point to guilt then you know that something fishy is going on. This is a cottage industry created by two men for a reason. Their own benefit. Cross even has his own fan club tv channel - I’m waiting for the merchandise to be advertised. The whole shameful, dishonest, wretched debacle does nothing but bring the subject into disrepute.

Well said Herlock.

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

His ‘being there’ is all there is. John Davis was there too. Alone with a recently killed Chapman. He wasn’t the killer either. Only the gullible or a child could think that Cross was the killer. An appalling, embarrassing suspect. When a suspect requires the manipulation of evidence, 100% deliberate falsification of the evidence, silly imaginary scams, contortions of the English language, deliberate misinterpretations and a list of bizarre and fatuous things that supposedly point to guilt then you know that something fishy is going on. This is a cottage industry created by two men for a reason. Their own benefit. Cross even has his own fan club tv channel - I’m waiting for the merchandise to be advertised. The whole shameful, dishonest, wretched debacle does nothing but bring the subject into disrepute.

[Mark J D]

Who is on your list please?

1) Lechmere

2) Uh, that's it.

The geography by itself puts him in the Premier League. Alone.

Solved.

M.

[Paddy Goose]

Good afternoon Rookie D,

... a top 10 ...

Who is on your list please?

[Lewis C]

But I don't know why they discounted Bury as the ripper, nor how much effort they put into doing so. Do you?

You personally believe he is a strong ripper suspect, while the police at the time evidently came to the opposite conclusion. Do you think they would have done so on nothing more than a hunch or a lazy assumption, when so much was at stake? Being able to hang Bury as the ripper, and not just a one-off wife killer, would have been huge.

If you are speculating that they did very little to investigate the JtR angle because you believe further inquiries ought to have led them to see Bury through your eyes, that would be a circular argument, wouldn't it?

Could it not equally have been the case that they did investigate the JtR angle as far as they reasonably could, in the hope of solving a whole series of murders with the one length of rope, but found enough evidence to rule Bury out, or not enough to make a case?

Love,

Caz
X

It wouldn't surprise me at all if they didn't find enough evidence to make a case against him, since I think that's where we are with him. I think he's the strongest among a weak group of suspects, and yet I think it's more likely that the killer was someone other than him than that it was him.

[John Wheat]

But I don't know why they discounted Bury as the ripper, nor how much effort they put into doing so. Do you?

You personally believe he is a strong ripper suspect, while the police at the time evidently came to the opposite conclusion. Do you think they would have done so on nothing more than a hunch or a lazy assumption, when so much was at stake? Being able to hang Bury as the ripper, and not just a one-off wife killer, would have been huge.

If you are speculating that they did very little to investigate the JtR angle because you believe further inquiries ought to have led them to see Bury through your eyes, that would be a circular argument, wouldn't it?

Could it not equally have been the case that they did investigate the JtR angle as far as they reasonably could, in the hope of solving a whole series of murders with the one length of rope, but found enough evidence to rule Bury out, or not enough to make a case?

Love,

Caz
X

It doesn't seem as though they put much effort into Bury perhaps their prejudices prevented them from investigating Bury properly. I'm suggesting that if they had investigated Bury more thoroughly there'd likely be some record of it.

[caz]

It doesn't seem they did though Caz.

But I don't know why they discounted Bury as the ripper, nor how much effort they put into doing so. Do you?

You personally believe he is a strong ripper suspect, while the police at the time evidently came to the opposite conclusion. Do you think they would have done so on nothing more than a hunch or a lazy assumption, when so much was at stake? Being able to hang Bury as the ripper, and not just a one-off wife killer, would have been huge.

If you are speculating that they did very little to investigate the JtR angle because you believe further inquiries ought to have led them to see Bury through your eyes, that would be a circular argument, wouldn't it?

Could it not equally have been the case that they did investigate the JtR angle as far as they reasonably could, in the hope of solving a whole series of murders with the one length of rope, but found enough evidence to rule Bury out, or not enough to make a case?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sunny Delight]

Berry may have wanted not to include Bury in his book because it would surely have all become about Berry hanging the Ripper and not everything else that had happened in Berry's life.

We will never know. Probably more likely though that Bury didn't actually tell him anything worth talking about.

[John Wheat]

Hi Abby,

While he may have had suspicions at the time, by the time his book came out in 1892, after Mckenzie, Pinchin St and Coles, it had become clear that the police were still looking for the ripper. This seems to have allayed his suspicions to the point where he considered Bury a just a wife killer.

Cheers, George

Berry may have wanted not to include Bury in his book because it would surely have all become about Berry hanging the Ripper and not everything else that had happened in Berry's life.

[GBinOz]

hi fiver
do we know why the hangman suspected bury? it really seems odd to me that berry, who wrote a book including all the famous criminals he'd hung, didnt include bury more with the ripper connection. you would think he would have jumped at the chance to write about how he had hung the ripper!

Hi Abby,

While he may have had suspicions at the time, by the time his book came out in 1892, after Mckenzie, Pinchin St and Coles, it had become clear that the police were still looking for the ripper. This seems to have allayed his suspicions to the point where he considered Bury a just a wife killer.

Cheers, George