Favoured Suspect...

[Scott Nelson]

But where were those elusive piles of sawdust that would conclusively place Bury at the murder scenes?

[John Wheat]

But where were those elusive piles of sawdust that would conclusively place Bury at the murder scenes?

Bury reportedly didn't actually do much work instead he spent most of the time drinking so I think it unlikely there would be any sawdust at the murder scenes.

[Fiver]

I disagree. I believe the Police's prejudices and lack of knowledge of serial killers lead them to think Bury innocent when Bury was in all likelihood Jack. Let's not forget that the Police at the time thought Chapman (totally different M.O.) and Druitt and Tumblety who frankly have little going for them as top suspects.

The police were nowhere near that uniform in their opinions.

Chapman was favored by Abberline and no one else.

Tumblety was favored by Littlechild and no one else.

Druitt was discounted by Abberline, Littlechild, and Reid.

Any several other police were sure that nobody had correctly identified the Ripper.

[Abby Normal]

The police were nowhere near that uniform in their opinions.

Chapman was favored by Abberline and no one else.

Tumblety was favored by Littlechild and no one else.

Druitt was discounted by Abberline, Littlechild, and Reid.

Any several other police were sure that nobody had correctly identified the Ripper.

hi fiver
is yoir response aimed at john or wick , who john was responding to? because your response is i think what johns point was, while wick was painting the police with a broad brush, like all the police rejected bury.

[Mike J. G.]

Not really relevant. If I was put in Abberline shoes in 1888 I'd be an entirely different person. Unless my conscience, as it is now, was transported with me.

And I said I agreed absolutely that Abberline didn't have all the tools, but even plain investigative work was lacking. You might argue about M.O and such, but I think MO is nothing but a logical conclusion of what someone would do. It's a stretch to suggest that a killer poisoning women is going to be the one ripping open bellies and the like. It's not like JTR was the first killer in existence. You mentioned Ramirez and Kurten as examples of them having used a different MO, but I beg to differ - the MO wasn't different at all, it was just escalation. Same as Jack. Just because what he did to Nichols pales in comparison to what he did to Kelly doesn't mean the pattern of the killing and the post butchery was any different other than the superficial difference in location and the extremity of it.

There is nothing in Abberline's career that we know of that suggests he was a great detective, let alone an infallible one that we all must listen to like gospel because he was the one investigating JTR which is the only thing I took issue with. Promotions are not an indication of competency and quite often than not they are. After all, we're not talking about a highly organized killer like DeAngelo here who seldom left any evidence at all and constantly misdirected the police, we're talking about a killer who struck nonchalantly in very populated areas and who wasn't that particularly careful with his safety.

I'm not really sure why you'd assume that Abberline should have had some great knowledge of what M.O. actually was in the year 1888 when such things weren't common knowledge.

Abberline explained all of his reasons for suspecting Chapman intelligently and clearly, and it's fairly easy enough to understand why he felt Chapman could've been the Ripper, and the reasons he gave were all logical and sound, whether we agree with them or not is neither here nor there. Abberline explained that he wasn't buying into the "crazed madman" nor "jumped in the Thames" stories, which, to me, is evidence that he obviously wasn't primitive in his thinking.


You're putting far too much emphasis on signature, when serial murderers are obviously capable of doing things outside of what we've come to expect them to do. Many killers, Ramirez and Kurten included, varied their kills, their weapons and their attacks. Kurten was attacking people in all manner of ways which seemed unrelated, so was Peter Sutcliffe, and Berkowitz, who began with a knife and ended with a gun.

Chapman wasn't poisoning random women. Chapman was poisoning his wives; women he was directly associated with. Abberline reasoned that his knowledge of and in medicine would have enabled him to have not only the ability to poison somebody, but also to commit the arguably surgical wounds on the C5. He was also struck that any man who could happily watch their significant other die slowly and painfully could also be said to be capable of anything, which I tend to agree with.

Again, I'm not personally promoting Chapman as the Ripper, but outlining why it was and is perfectly reasonable for others to do so, especially in the year 1888. One thing that sets Chapman apart from any other suspect isn't just that he was a murderer, but that he was a multiple murderer of women who lived and worked in the area, was said to go out at night and had previously threatened to behead a former wife with a knife.

Chapman isn't a bad suspect at all, along with James Kelly and William Bury, who all make logical sense as suspects. I'm not saying any of them are, but that you'd be forgiven for thinking they could be, especially in the year 1888.

Abberline wasn't a fool for being unable to catch the killer. There was simply very little that could be done back then, and what could be done, generally was tried. It is what it is. We'll never solve the case.

[Mike J. G.]

Put quite beautifully if I may say so. For the standards of the time Abberline ran a very thorough investigation- and we only have a snippet of what was uncovered. I wouldn't even suggest he was incompetent by modern standards. He appears to have directed his men to follow up any and every potential lead and this was done to the best of their abilities. The area was saturated with Police- both uniformed and plain clothes. After Kelly's murder they even thought of pioneering the use of sniffer dogs in order to track a potential killer(something underestimated as the reason why the Ripper may have stopped for a while- I think McKenzie and Coles were victims). They also pioneered the photographing of a victim in situ.

I think the Police did as well as they probably could. They were just overwhelmed with information and had only crude methods available to them scientifically. They didn't even have fingerprint technology yet and they had no idea whatsoever about MO and signature that serial killers use. That doesn't mean they were incompetent though.

Cheers, mate. I tend to agree with you. It wasn't an easy task, and though there were obviously things that could've been done differently (there usually is!) they generally did all they could.

An unenviable task that we're no closer to completing.

[John Wheat]

I'm not really sure why you'd assume that Abberline should have had some great knowledge of what M.O. actually was in the year 1888 when such things weren't common knowledge.

Abberline explained all of his reasons for suspecting Chapman intelligently and clearly, and it's fairly easy enough to understand why he felt Chapman could've been the Ripper, and the reasons he gave were all logical and sound, whether we agree with them or not is neither here nor there. Abberline explained that he wasn't buying into the "crazed madman" nor "jumped in the Thames" stories, which, to me, is evidence that he obviously wasn't primitive in his thinking.


You're putting far too much emphasis on signature, when serial murderers are obviously capable of doing things outside of what we've come to expect them to do. Many killers, Ramirez and Kurten included, varied their kills, their weapons and their attacks. Kurten was attacking people in all manner of ways which seemed unrelated, so was Peter Sutcliffe, and Berkowitz, who began with a knife and ended with a gun.

Chapman wasn't poisoning random women. Chapman was poisoning his wives; women he was directly associated with. Abberline reasoned that his knowledge of and in medicine would have enabled him to have not only the ability to poison somebody, but also to commit the arguably surgical wounds on the C5. He was also struck that any man who could happily watch their significant other die slowly and painfully could also be said to be capable of anything, which I tend to agree with.

Again, I'm not personally promoting Chapman as the Ripper, but outlining why it was and is perfectly reasonable for others to do so, especially in the year 1888. One thing that sets Chapman apart from any other suspect isn't just that he was a murderer, but that he was a multiple murderer of women who lived and worked in the area, was said to go out at night and had previously threatened to behead a former wife with a knife.

Chapman isn't a bad suspect at all, along with James Kelly and William Bury, who all make logical sense as suspects. I'm not saying any of them are, but that you'd be forgiven for thinking they could be, especially in the year 1888.

Abberline wasn't a fool for being unable to catch the killer. There was simply very little that could be done back then, and what could be done, generally was tried. It is what it is. We'll never solve the case.

A largely goood post however I still think Chapman's vastly different M.O. is a real stumbling block to him being Jack. I don't think either Kelly or Bury need such a leap. A violent knife murderer and mutilator to a poisoner is a massive change of M.O.

Cheers John

[Abby Normal]

I'm not really sure why you'd assume that Abberline should have had some great knowledge of what M.O. actually was in the year 1888 when such things weren't common knowledge.

Abberline explained all of his reasons for suspecting Chapman intelligently and clearly, and it's fairly easy enough to understand why he felt Chapman could've been the Ripper, and the reasons he gave were all logical and sound, whether we agree with them or not is neither here nor there. Abberline explained that he wasn't buying into the "crazed madman" nor "jumped in the Thames" stories, which, to me, is evidence that he obviously wasn't primitive in his thinking.


You're putting far too much emphasis on signature, when serial murderers are obviously capable of doing things outside of what we've come to expect them to do. Many killers, Ramirez and Kurten included, varied their kills, their weapons and their attacks. Kurten was attacking people in all manner of ways which seemed unrelated, so was Peter Sutcliffe, and Berkowitz, who began with a knife and ended with a gun.

Chapman wasn't poisoning random women. Chapman was poisoning his wives; women he was directly associated with. Abberline reasoned that his knowledge of and in medicine would have enabled him to have not only the ability to poison somebody, but also to commit the arguably surgical wounds on the C5. He was also struck that any man who could happily watch their significant other die slowly and painfully could also be said to be capable of anything, which I tend to agree with.

Again, I'm not personally promoting Chapman as the Ripper, but outlining why it was and is perfectly reasonable for others to do so, especially in the year 1888. One thing that sets Chapman apart from any other suspect isn't just that he was a murderer, but that he was a multiple murderer of women who lived and worked in the area, was said to go out at night and had previously threatened to behead a former wife with a knife.

Chapman isn't a bad suspect at all, along with James Kelly and William Bury, who all make logical sense as suspects. I'm not saying any of them are, but that you'd be forgiven for thinking they could be, especially in the year 1888.

Abberline wasn't a fool for being unable to catch the killer. There was simply very little that could be done back then, and what could be done, generally was tried. It is what it is. We'll never solve the case.

Great post mike ! Totally agree with everything you say here.