The Manchester Murders

[John Hacker]

As I said earlier... people have been looking for killings that support the diary for a long, long time now and have come up empty. Given the press JtR received it's far more of a stretch for an unnoticed crime or "mysterious death" to have occurred.

The press would be all over any killing where "I have showered my fury on the bitch. I struck and struck. I do not know how I stopped." could be used as a description.

So... If I were a gambling man I'd bet you won't find that one either.

But as I've always said, anything is possible.

[MayBea]

The poison one was in February. This one was in December.

Like everyone else, I have yet to find the one in December. Care to wager?

[GUT]

How does:


I have showered my fury on the bitch. I struck and struck. I do not know how I stopped.

Come anywhere near what was investigated as poisoning be suicide.

[MayBea]

Okay, I think I've now found the reference to the second Manchester Murder. There actually was one mentioned in the Diary and it was before Christmas 1888.

I will be in Manchester within a few days. I believe I will feel a great deal better when I have repeated on my last performance. I wonder if I can improve on my fiendish deeds. Will wait and see, no doubt I will think of something. The day is drawing to a close, Lowry was in fine spirits. I am pleased. I regret, as with my Jewish friends I have shown my wrath. This coming Christmas I will make amends;

The bitch, the whore is not satisfied with one whore master, she now has eyes on another. I could not cut like my last, visions of her flooded back as I struck. I tried to quash all thoughts of love. I left her for dead, that I know. It did not amuse me. There was thrill. I have showered my fury on the bitch. I struck and struck. I do not know how I stopped.

[MayBea]

I didn't believe the murders went unreported, especially the one that was supposed to have happened in late December 1888 or 1889, but that one likely didn't happen as the Diary text I read online doesn't say it did. Hense, the reason it was not found.

The purpose of the exercise was to prove that there may have been inadequate research and candidates missed and judgement premature on both sides. I can't prove that now.

Although I think Betsy Dyson is still ambiguous enough to be what Diary supporters are looking for, it's not surprising she wasn't red-flagged by anyone else.

They might have been put off by the headline highlighting POISON when no poison was found by the second doctor, if researchers even found her in the first place. I only found her by searching for "mysterious deaths".

I'm going to complete the research on Betsy before I start to speculate on how she could be "squeezed" in.

[John Hacker]

People have been looking for a suitable candidate for the Manchester murder for a while now and nothing good has turned up.

There are really only main 2 options there. Either the killing somehow escaped all notice or because it was a throwaway line in the forgery.

If we turned up a good, previously unknown candidate for a killing that actually suggested Jack could have responsible it would help support the diary. Not a lot, but it would at least strengthen the possibility that it's not a modern forgery.

But you've got a death that was considered poisoning at the time and you're trying to suggest it was a JtR killing based on the mention of a Manchester murder in a document that is widely considered a forgery. An actual murder would count in the diaries column, but that doesn't really work the other way unless there was some sort of compelling evidence that suggested a murder that is compatible with the text of the diary.

I have to admit I never gave much thought to the Manchester claims given the other problems with the book. We've already got the physical selection of the book, the characterization of the killer, the narrative, the fact there was a narrative, the choice of suspect as a highly documented individual, the handwriting, the forensics, the lack of provenance, the FM, the fact that one of those who produced it confessed etc etc etc...

There are arguments against each of these problems, but at some point there should be some sort of clear and convincing evidence that stands alone and we don't have that.

At this point of the diary is to be rehabilitated it will take something strong. And a maybe, could be murder that at the time was considered poisoning doesn't help to get there.

John

[MayBea]

I always saw the Manchester murders as taking place inside with the victim in a bed, probably because the Diarist says it was cold and wet.

If there was a Manchester killing, this doesn't feel like it and there's no evidence to suggest it at this point. There might be some out there, but that article points away from that conclusion.

I took a good look for suitable Manchester murders and didn't find any other possibilities.

So I understand why they said there was no matching murder or none can be found.

Anyway, I think I've positively identified Betsy Dyson as Betsy Culshaw, a cotton weaver, who married James Dyson in 1884.

[John Hacker]

I don't think we can count on definite anything. It's possible Jack knew a sleeper hold from somewhere, got it right the first time and managed to do so with no sign of violence whatsoever.

Not likely, but possible.

We've got a woman that as far as we know had no history of prostitution. We know that suicide was suspected. We know the cause of death was left open. That's all we really have to go on.

If it was Jack, either the historical Jack or "Sir Jim" I would expect a great enough level of violence we wouldn't have to deal with the poisoning question.

I also find it hard to believe that had she collapsed on a street or anything like that.

They not only suspected poison, but intentional suicide which suggests a history that leads in that direction and a death that would support that conclusion. Dead in a bed? Sure. Dead on a street or in an alley... not so much. People rarely go out on the town to poison themselves.

Possible? Sure. Almost anything is at this late date. Likely? No. Not really.

If there was a Manchester killing, this doesn't feel like it and there's no evidence to suggest it at this point. There might be some out there, but that article points away from that conclusion.

John

[MayBea]

Why would there definitely be a record of violence? I've read that strangulations are sometimes determined by the breaking of a small bone in the neck, not by 'handprints' around the neck.

The "sleeper hold" wouldn't leave marks on the neck.

http://www.markwynn.com/wp-content/uploads/death-by-strangulation.pdf

[John Hacker]

According to the evidence in the article you cited it was hardly proved that it wasn't poison or suicide. Bradley suspected suicide, the test got bungled somehow by Estcourt. This apparently did not change Bradley's opinion as he still felt an investigation of local chemist shops were in order.

The article title also sort of points out the current thinking at the time.

"THE MYSTERIOUS POISONING CASE AT FARNWORTH "

It's possible that a natural death was attributed to poison. That wouldn't be at all shocking. But looking at it from 125 years later... We'll never know.

I am sure though that it's a long jump to the idea that based on the death being mysterious to a possible killing by "Sir Jim". One thing I would not expect a JtR killing as mysterious. I would expect something more along the lines of brutal, grisly, a horror, etc...

With no recorded evidence of any sort of violence (and we know Jim "squeezed") I have to go with mysterious but unrelated.

John

[MayBea]

Suicide by poison was suspected. That suspicion was proven false by the evidence.

So what is the verdict? Do you believe a 27 year old died spontaneously of unknown natural causes or died of suicide by method unknown?

I think the fact that Farnworth is in Bolton which has had dozens of cotton mills, with 15 in Farnworth, and Bolton is on the Northern Railway Line goes a long way to proving that a cotton merchant from Liverpool could have found his way to a collier's wife there.

[GUT]

It's unexplained, but there would need to be a lot more before it could be plausibly be classified as the killing the diary alludes to.

John

A whole lot more.

[John Hacker]

It appears that at the very least suicide by way of poison was suspected. But that's a long way from matching the tone of the diary when describing the murder.

There's no strangulation. Nothing to suggest any prostitution or another plausible way for "Sir Jim" to find her. No mutilation, etc... The diary sets a very specific tone that matches the historical killings with the charming addition of using the word "whore" to excess. "Sir Jim" was an angry, angry man.

Beyond that, I doubt the man responsible for the historical killings would be satisfied with poison or a light squeeze. It's one thing to bungle lab results but mistaking strangulation for poisoning.... That's a stretch.

It's unexplained, but there would need to be a lot more before it could be plausibly be classified as the killing the diary alludes to.

John

[MayBea]

The doctor on the scene made the wrong call for some reason and we are left with an "open verdict", which I believe includes foul play. I'm not ready to say the doctor didn't make another mistake and miss evidence of strangulation.

I was ready to move on to the alleged "Second" Manchester Murder at the end of 1888 or early 1889. But I can't find any evidence in the available text online that the Diarist actually says James went through with it.

It looks like there was only the one in February or March 1888.

[John Hacker]

To me it sounds like an unexpected death that the coroner asked for toxicology on and came up empty. An unanticipated death with no explanation.

I think we can rule out self strangling though. I've seen people in anaphylactic shock where breathing is suddenly not an option.

They might grab or point at their throat, but I can't imagine anyone seriously unable to breathe grabbing so tight as to create bruises that could cover an actual strangulation. It's kind of self defeating.

John