J. H. Scott

[Pcdunn]

More likely to be the Torso Killer than the Ripper

Accurate in the sense that Scott doesn't fit them, or that the evidence doesn't fit them?

Pick one point with which you disagree, and I'll explain the reasoning.

I don't know enough about Scott to know if he fits the evidence, but it is clear that the evidence in the Ripper murders do not support the idea that the victims were killed elsewhere and dumped where they were found. Aside from early reports in the case of Polly Nichols, in fact, that has never even been suggested-- and the papers soon corrected this idea.

If you wish to insist that the murderer dumped his victims (or the dismembered remains of them), investigate the Torso Murders(? assuming they WERE all murder victims, and not pranks by medical students).

[Jack Whicher]

In terms of where the killings took place there's little evidence either way but I have often wondered where annie Chapman could have got to for 3 or so hours
She was in and out of the lodging house till about 2 then what?

I agree, there is little evidence either way.

I'm aware that most people who post here have formed hard opinions to the contrary, but they don't conform to the evidence.

Rather than reply to everyone whom I've outraged, I'll start the explanation here.
Rather than reply to everyone whom I've outraged, I'll make my case here.

When I said that Ripper victims were killed elsewhere and then ‘dumped’, I was aware that most people who post here have formed hard opinions to the contrary. When I examined those opinions, I came to the same conclusion you did: “there is little evidence either way.”

When I was in active practice, I followed certain rules in forming my theory/explanation of a crime of a crime. As applied to this issue those would be:
Rule 1. One can’t discard facts to make a theory fit.
Rule 2. One can’t invent facts to make a theory fit.
Rule 3. To be valid, a theory must include EVERY fact.
Rule 4. Absent a compelling reason to depart, an analysis should conform to accepted contemporary theories of criminal behavior.

In this case, I begin by using the most probable explanation and see if all evidence fits.
Example 1:
a. Accepted contemporary theories of criminal behavior state that most Organized Serial Killers (hereafter OSK) are Caucasian.
b. The majority race in Spitallfields Parish, in the 1800s, was Caucasian.
c. There is no evidence to suggest Mr. Ripper is Black, Asian, or Hispanic.
d. Therefore the most probable explanation is that Mr. Ripper was a Caucasian male.

Example 2:
a. Accepted contemporary theories of criminal behavior of state that the AVERAGE age of an OSK at the time of their first homicide is 27.5*
b. There is no evidence to suggest Mr. Ripper was older or younger.
d. Therefore the most probable explanation is that Mr. Ripper was between 25 and 32 on August 31, 1888 when he killed Mary Ann Nichols.
*Hickey, Eric. Serial Murders and Their Victims, second edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1997.

Applying this same method to the place of death issue:

a. Accepted contemporary theories of criminal behavior:
1. serial killers divide into three categories: organized, disorganized, and mixed.*
2. Organized serial killers usually abduct victims, kill them in one place, and dispose of the bodies in another.*
3. Organized serial killers usually use the same method in killing victims.*
*The FBI “Crime Classification Manual: A Standard System for Investigating and Classifying Violent Crimes (1992)

b. FACT:
1. Mary Jane Kelly was killed in a private room concealed from public view. (Therefore the most probable explanation is that killing in a private room concealed from public view is part of Rippers method.)

c. FACTS:
1. John Richardson testified that he was in the courtyard of 29 Hanbury Street about 1 hour before Annie Chapman’s body was found.
2. Medical testimony established that Chapman was dead when Richardson was in the courtyard. (onset of rigor mortis)

This is a little long-winded, but it shows some of the evidentiary and research support for concluding that the victims were killed elsewhere.

[Jack Whicher]

I don't know enough about Scott to know if he fits the evidence, but it is clear that the evidence in the Ripper murders do not support the idea that the victims were killed elsewhere and dumped where they were found. Aside from early reports in the case of Polly Nichols, in fact, that has never even been suggested-- and the papers soon corrected this idea.

If you wish to insist that the murderer dumped his victims (or the dismembered remains of them), investigate the Torso Murders(? assuming they WERE all murder victims, and not pranks by medical students).

The Torso Murders do not support the theory that the victims were killed elsewhere.

Therefore we can conclude that:
a. they were not Ripper killings because they do not fit his method of killing, or
b. Ripper killed his victims where he left the bodies. (then you have to explain Chapman)
I believe a is correct because it embraces Richardson's testimony.

[Patrick S]

I agree, there is little evidence either way.

I'm aware that most people who post here have formed hard opinions to the contrary, but they don't conform to the evidence.

Rather than reply to everyone whom I've outraged, I'll start the explanation here.
Rather than reply to everyone whom I've outraged, I'll make my case here.

I haven't seen anyone outraged, as yet. I, for one, am always interested in new, previously unexplored aspects of the case, Whitechapel circa 1888, etc. This fits perfectly. Thus don't count me among the outraged.

When I said that Ripper victims were killed elsewhere and then ‘dumped’, I was aware that most people who post here have formed hard opinions to the contrary.

To be fair, contemporary examination of the bodies "concluded" for those doing the examining that the bodies hadn't been dumped.

When I examined those opinions, I came to the same conclusion you did: “there is little evidence either way.”

I think you'll have to explain that because I think that many will disagree. In a previous post I listed just a few items that very strongly suggest otherwise.

When I was in active practice, I followed certain rules in forming my theory/explanation of a crime of a crime. As applied to this issue those would be:

Rule 1. One can’t discard facts to make a theory fit.
Rule 2. One can’t invent facts to make a theory fit.
Rule 3. To be valid, a theory must include EVERY fact.
Rule 4. Absent a compelling reason to depart, an analysis should conform to accepted contemporary theories of criminal behavior.

In this case, I begin by using the most probable explanation and see if all evidence fits.

Example 1:
a. Accepted contemporary theories of criminal behavior state that most Organized Serial Killers (hereafter OSK) are Caucasian.
b. The majority race in Spitallfields Parish, in the 1800s, was Caucasian.
c. There is no evidence to suggest Mr. Ripper is Black, Asian, or Hispanic.
d. Therefore the most probable explanation is that Mr. Ripper was a Caucasian male.

I think this is pretty commonly held opinion. Although, can you stop calling him Mr. Ripper? It's a bit like calling David Berkowitz 'Mr. Sam' or Dennis Rader 'Mr. TK'.

Example 2:
a. Accepted contemporary theories of criminal behavior of state that the AVERAGE age of an OSK at the time of their first homicide is 27.5*
b. There is no evidence to suggest Mr. Ripper was older or younger.
d. Therefore the most probable explanation is that Mr. Ripper was between 25 and 32 on August 31, 1888 when he killed Mary Ann Nichols.
*Hickey, Eric. Serial Murders and Their Victims, second edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1997.

Okay. This isn't new, either.


Applying this same method to the place of death issue:

a. Accepted contemporary theories of criminal behavior:
1. serial killers divide into three categories: organized, disorganized, and mixed.*
2. Organized serial killers usually abduct victims, kill them in one place, and dispose of the bodies in another.*
3. Organized serial killers usually use the same method in killing victims.*
*The FBI “Crime Classification Manual: A Standard System for Investigating and Classifying Violent Crimes (1992)

b. FACT:
1. Mary Jane Kelly was killed in a private room concealed from public view. (Therefore the most probable explanation is that killing in a private room concealed from public view is part of Rippers method.)

Opportunity plays a role. You have selected one of five murders, taken a varient of that murder and made it the killers method. I would argue that most people would rather use the restroom out of public view, in the privacy of a home. Yet, that's not always possible. When it is, that's what you do. When it's not, you make due.

c. FACTS:
1. John Richardson testified that he was in the courtyard of 29 Hanbury Street about 1 hour before Annie Chapman’s body was found.
2. Medical testimony established that Chapman was dead when Richardson was in the courtyard. (onset of rigor mortis)

You deal with Chapman only here. What of Eddowes? She was spotted outside Mitre Square - alive and with a man - some ten minutes before her body was found. What of Stride (if she's a victim in your scenario). She was spotted by witnesses in the area before she was found dead. She was spotted by a PC some thrity mintues before her body was found. Do you feel she's an exception or was he lured to and killed elsewhere then brought BACK to Dutfield's Yard for Deimshutz to find?



This is a little long-winded, but it shows some of the evidentiary and research support for concluding that the victims were killed elsewhere.

Don't mistake debate, questions, etc. for outrage. With repsect to theory, common traits of killers...that's all been discussed on these pages. Some buy it, some don't. Personally, I don't think it's wise dismiss this approach. I think it's a valuable guide. Alas, there are no hard and fast rules. That's the only thing that's proven again and again.

I'm interested in hearing more about your man. How did you learn about him. What reason do you have for suspecting him?

[Jack Whicher]

A suitcase or a canvas bag.

There is considerable precident for using such items to carry human bodys through areas crowded with other people.

For Example:
"all the victims were in their early 20s and of similar height. All the victims had injury marks on their neck. In at least four cases, the bodies were found inside a travel bag/suitcase that was recovered from a train at a railway station, or near it."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/Serial-killer-behind-bodybags/articleshow/8156044.cms

[Patrick S]

A suitcase or a canvas bag.

There is considerable precident for using such items to carry human bodys through areas crowded with other people.

For Example:
"all the victims were in their early 20s and of similar height. All the victims had injury marks on their neck. In at least four cases, the bodies were found inside a travel bag/suitcase that was recovered from a train at a railway station, or near it."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/c...ow/8156044.cms

Jack - please state who you are directing your replay to (or quote the post). It will help us keep the dialogue focused.

[DRoy]

Jack,

First of all, welcome to the boards.

Second, you haven't explained why you feel Scott is guilty of the murders. Besides being a white male and living in London at the time, what makes him a suspect other than that? You do realize there were thousands of others who fit those same three things don't you? The rest of your assessment is speculation only and not necessarily supported by the evidence.

Please share more...

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

b. FACT:
1. Mary Jane Kelly was killed in a private room concealed from public view. (Therefore the most probable explanation is that killing in a private room concealed from public view is part of Rippers method.)

Hello again Jack.

No.
The most probable explanation is that Kelly invited him back, just like what happened with one (and only one), of the Yorkshire Ripper victims.
Purely a one-off occurrence.

[note: most of her class admitted to sleeping in their clothes, which was the normal habit for people in general at the bottom of the social ladder in those days - the fact she was not dressed is consistent with her 'entertaining' when killed]

c. FACTS:
1. John Richardson testified that he was in the courtyard of 29 Hanbury Street about 1 hour before Annie Chapman’s body was found.
2. Medical testimony established that Chapman was dead when Richardson was in the courtyard. (onset of rigor mortis)

The 'fact' which you choose to omit is that Dr Phillips qualified that opinion by saying he was not sure how rapid the body would cool after being ripped open. Thereby casting a degree of doubt on his previous opinion. Which in turn means the previous opinion was not a 'fact'.

Medical 'opinions' are not facts. The Medical professional is the only witness who is permitted to advance an opinion. Everyone else must stick to facts (what they saw, heard & did).

[Sleuth1888]

Hi Jack. Welcome to Casebook.

Social:
Mr. Ripper is married and probably has young children.
Economically and socially he is a member of the middle class.
Acquaintances describe him as kind and unlikely to hurt anyone.
He has no public history of mental illness or instability.

Please tell me how you came to the conclusion that the killer belonged to the middle class.

Is there anything that you found in the killer's M.O. or the known case details which suggest that the Ripper was more than likely a member of the respectable middle classes?

Many thanks,
Sleuth1888

[Jack Whicher]

Hello again Jack.

No.
The most probable explanation is that Kelly invited him back, just like what happened with one (and only one), of the Yorkshire Ripper victims.
Purely a one-off occurrence.

[note: most of her class admitted to sleeping in their clothes, which was the normal habit for people in general at the bottom of the social ladder in those days - the fact she was not dressed is consistent with her 'entertaining' when killed]



The 'fact' which you choose to omit is that Dr Phillips qualified that opinion by saying he was not sure how rapid the body would cool after being ripped open. Thereby casting a degree of doubt on his previous opinion. Which in turn means the previous opinion was not a 'fact'.

Medical 'opinions' are not facts. The Medical professional is the only witness who is permitted to advance an opinion. Everyone else must stick to facts (what they saw, heard & did).

Dr. Dr. George Bagster Phillips describes the body of Annie Chapman as he saw it at 6:30 AM in the back yard of the house at 29 Hanbury Street. This is inquest testimony.

"The left arm was placed across the left breast. The legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards. The face was swollen and turned on the right side. The tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The tongue was evidently much swollen. The front teeth were perfect as far as the first molar, top and bottom and very fine teeth they were. The body was terribly mutilated...the stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but was evidently commencing. "

We know that the onset of rigor-mortis is 2 to 4 hours following death. Thus she would have died between 2:30 and 4:30.

Whether Phillips knew it or not, the effect of cold is to delay the onset of rigor-mortis rather than accelerate it. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/rigor_mortis.aspx

This has the effect of moving the time of death back making it less likely that she was killed in the courtyard.

It's possible that John Richardson sat on the steps in the courtyard with Chapman's body a few feet away and he didn't see it, but I don't think it's likely.

[Jack Whicher]

Hi Jack. Welcome to Casebook.



Please tell me how you came to the conclusion that the killer belonged to the middle class.

Is there anything that you found in the killer's M.O. or the known case details which suggest that the Ripper was more than likely a member of the respectable middle classes?

Many thanks,
Sleuth1888

Thanks for the welcome, I'm looking forward to this.


Today we have enough data on serial killers to talk about what an average one looks like; according to the FBI's Crime Classification Manual, they are white, middle class, and male. Because he probably lives within Spitalfields Parish he is "hiding in plain sight" meaning he is not a suspect because he is normal. Normally Organized serial killers are middle-class, white males.

My approach is to assume JR has the most probable characteristics for an Organized serial killer (unless the evidence suggests otherwise) and then look for a person who fits the model this process creates.

[Wickerman]

Dr. Dr. George Bagster Phillips describes the body of Annie Chapman as he saw it at 6:30 AM in the back yard of the house at 29 Hanbury Street. This is inquest testimony.
.
.
"... The body was terribly mutilated...the stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but was evidently commencing. "

We know that the onset of rigor-mortis is 2 to 4 hours following death. Thus she would have died between 2:30 and 4:30.

The problem we have is quantifying what "evidently commencing" means.
And yes, cooling delays the onset of Rigor, but exertion prior to death accelerates the onset (ie; did she fight for her life?). Muscle tension and stress have a similar affect on body chemistry as would heat (which is not a consideration in this case).

Now, Dr Phillips referred to "the limbs", and today we know that rigor begins in the smaller muscles, fingers, toes, neck & face muscles, spreading up the hands & feet to the lower limbs. The larger muscles being affected last.
So, as Phillips remarked on the "limbs" we might infer rigor had already begun in the smaller muscles - and which limbs? Lower or upper leg, or lower or upper arms?
There could be an hour difference depending which muscles he was referring to.

Also, one of the unanswered questions we have today is, what did 19th century pathologists "believe" caused rigor?
Today we know it is the result of a chemical reaction, but back in the day they may have thought it was connected to temperature.

If you have ever read Niderkorn's examples (1872) you will appreciate just how variable & irregular rigor mortis is when developing.
Niderkorn used 113 corpses and found that in 14 cases rigor was complete in 3 hours.
In 31 cases it was complete in 4 hours.
In 14 cases again, it took 5 hours.
In 20 cases it took 6 hours, and so on.

All of the above considerations make it very precarious for us today to assume we can determine with any accuracy when Chapman actually died.
All we can reasonably assume for certain is, Dr Phillips was not really sure.

[harry]

Jack,
By what method do you perceive the killer used to transport the victims?
From where do you believe he transported them,and why was it necessary to place them where they were found?Why not place Annie Chapman in front of 29 Berner street,on the pavement?
That will do for a start.

[harry]

Jack,
That should read 29 Hanbury Street.I lost my way in the darkness.

[Jack Whicher]

Please tell us how you reach all those conclusions.

In a general sense, I am using the classifications for serial killers that the FBI uses in their Crime Classification Manual. This makes him an Organized serial killer. This classification provides a set of probable characteristics which I then apply to JR (unless the evidence suggests otherwise.)

I then used the results of the 2014 geographic profiling by Canadian criminologist Dr Kim Rossmo and Steve Le Comber of Queen Mary, University of London. This placed JR on Flower and Dean Street.

I then began looking for people in the near vicinity of Flower and Dean who matched the profile of a typical Organized serial killer.

I realized that a middle class family, or single man, wouldn't live living on Flower and Dean. They would stand out because there is no reason why they would live in a slum.

Which led me to ask what would lead a middle class family man to live in Spitalfields Parish.

One answer is the clergy. A clergyman with an ostensible mission to minister to the poor would live with the poor.

Christ Church is one block north of Flower and Dean Street. In 1888 the church changed Rectors; the new Rector was Rev. J. H. Scott.

Under his leadership Christ Church led an extensive ministry for the poor. Medical clinics, workhouses (where Scott had tea with the poor women) the church provided emergency shelter for women, and Rev Scott was noted for being out at all hours visiting and ministering to the poor near his church.

In late 1888, his church bought a building on Hancock Street and converted it into the main hall for Christ Church. Shortly thereafter, Chapman was found a few houses away.

Scott benefited from the killings financially: he used them in fundraising letters asking for money to buy a house to put more parish workers among the poor.

My sense is that the Church of England was trying to goad London government into providing help for the poor. JR drew attention to the East End.

A book entitled _______ contains an interview with Rev. J. H. Scott.
"Here is a night refuge for fallen girls, and the Church Rescue Worker gets 400 off the streets in a single year; two dispensaries absolutely free' a half-dozen mission halls; three boys' homes; and a women's shelter." Lay readers - Gentile and Jew; medical missionaries; nurses; a dozen sisters; and four clergy strive to justify God to the people. Out-door services, week days and Sunday; Infirmary and casual ward visitation; House to house visitation is actively carried out, and this is greatly insisted on."

"No one can tell the work of the Rector of Spitfields. Often he returns home perfectly exhausted. So also do his wife and daughters. Morning, noon, and night it is toil, toil, toil, and no recompense here."

https://books.google.com/books?id=hZ3_NYcTVrUC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=Rev.+J.+H.+Scott,+rector+of+Spitalfields&source=bl&ots=-vJ4LfyweJ&sig=OlncsEawtJXoyN13xHJykguciz0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIyazVwPWXyAIVw6CACh2kiweW#v=onepage&q=Rev.%20J.%20H.%20Scott%2C%20rector%20of%20Spitalfields&f=false