The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[GBinOz]

I keep mentioning the gap between McKenzie and the Pinchin Street victim was killed by The Torso Killer. As for Frances Coles I'm not sure who killed her. With all due respect the Police at the time didn't solve the Ripper murders by Ripper murders I'm largely talking about the C5 and they didn't solve The Torso Murders either. They also failed to properly investigate Bury. So I don't put much faith in the Police at the time. The gaps between McKenzie, Frances Coles are quite large compared to the gaps between the C5. They weren't killed by the Ripper. As Ive previously stated The Torso Killer and odds on perpetrator of the Pinchin Street victim operated for years. Possibly from 1873 to 1889.

So how do you reconcile this post with your statement that the chances of there being more than one murderer are virtually zero?

[GBinOz]

Please provide Evidence Which ''Doctor'' exactly that couldnt agree with Dr Bonds description of the way Mary Kellys heart was removed ? That old arguement of 'Dr couldnt agree on medical knowledge '' is used way to broadly to support many suspects without such knowledge , totally ignoring the one with it .
'
So again, can you provide any ''Factual Evidence'' Bury was able to remove mary kellys heart in the way Dr Bond expert medical opinion tells us it was ?


Bury is a murderer yes , but a poor suspect as JtR due to his unknown medical knowledge in regards to Mary Kelly heart removal procedure ,which as we all know Thompson was well versed in . So a better suspect he makes .

Hi Fishy,

An astute post indeed. As Prosector has observed, in 1888 the first appendectomy was yet to be performed, and hysterectomies were yet to be performed on living subjects. Doctors had very limited experience of surgery and surgeons were just commencing in their operations on living subjects. Objectively, the opinions of Dr Phillips on matters of dissection are the only ones worthy of consideration.

Prosector concluded that the procedures employed at the murders of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were consistent with those employed in dissection schools. Thompson spent six years in dissection schools. Two years was enough to qualify as a doctor, but he didn't proceed in that direction. He did however proceed to write poetry that fantasised about cutting women open and blood letting. His poetry gained notoriety shortly before the JtR murders and he was able to afford new clothing and, probably a better diet. He was in London at the time and purportedly seeking his departed prostitute who he considered to have abandoned him.

If viewed objectively, someone very much like Thompson could have been responsible for at least some of the Whitechapel murders.

Cheers, George

[John Wheat]

Please provide Evidence Which ''Doctor'' exactly that couldnt agree with Dr Bonds description of the way Mary Kellys heart was removed ? That old arguement of 'Dr couldnt agree on medical knowledge '' is used way to broadly to support many suspects without such knowledge , totally ignoring the one with it .
'
So again, can you provide any ''Factual Evidence'' Bury was able to remove mary kellys heart in the way Dr Bond expert medical opinion tells us it was ?


Bury is a murderer yes , but a poor suspect as JtR due to his unknown medical knowledge in regards to Mary Kelly heart removal procedure ,which as we all know Thompson was well versed in . So a better suspect he makes .

Bury was a murderer and post mortem mutilator and head and shoulders above any other Ripper suspect.

[John Wheat]

With all due respect John, you are proposing that you know more than the professionals who were on the ground investigating at the time. They didn't know who the ripper was, and neither do you. You have also stated that the chances of another murderer operating at the time was virtually zero. So who killed McKenzie, the Pinchin St victim and Frances Coles? Did Bury resurrect himself to kill these women?

I keep mentioning the gap between McKenzie and the Pinchin Street victim was killed by The Torso Killer. As for Frances Coles I'm not sure who killed her. With all due respect the Police at the time didn't solve the Ripper murders by Ripper murders I'm largely talking about the C5 and they didn't solve The Torso Murders either. They also failed to properly investigate Bury. So I don't put much faith in the Police at the time. The gaps between McKenzie, Frances Coles are quite large compared to the gaps between the C5. They weren't killed by the Ripper. As Ive previously stated The Torso Killer and odds on perpetrator of the Pinchin Street victim operated for years. Possibly from 1873 to 1889.

[GBinOz]

Thank you George .

Hi Fishy,

You are very kind, but there is no need to thank me for supporting you in the statement of the (bleeding) obvious.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

The doctors of the time couldn't agree on wether the Ripper had any medical skill. So your point is largely moot. The fact is Bury is a proven murderer and post mortem mutilator. These two facts put Bury head and shoulders above the rest of the suspects.

Please provide Evidence Which ''Doctor'' exactly that couldnt agree with Dr Bonds description of the way Mary Kellys heart was removed ? That old arguement of 'Dr couldnt agree on medical knowledge '' is used way to broadly to support many suspects without such knowledge , totally ignoring the one with it .
'
So again, can you provide any ''Factual Evidence'' Bury was able to remove mary kellys heart in the way Dr Bond expert medical opinion tells us it was ?


Bury is a murderer yes , but a poor suspect as JtR due to his unknown medical knowledge in regards to Mary Kelly heart removal procedure ,which as we all know Thompson was well versed in . So a better suspect he makes .

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

I agree with you that this minority/majority proposition is nonsense. The factual evidence is that someone employed dissection techniques in these murders. The mobilisation of the small intestines, the deviation around the navel, the abominable hysterectomy that avoided nicking the bladder, the removal of the kidney and the extraction of the heart from the pericardium via the abdominal cavity. To attribute these abilities to the likes of Bury is absurd.

So those that wish to maintain these illusions have to come to a decision. Either they accept that these dissection procedures, conducted while kneeling beside the victim in the dark, are beyond the capabilities of their preferred suspect, or that that these procedures took place after the event. The problem with the latter alternative is that the mobilisation of the small intestines, and possibly the deviation around the navel was evident at the crime scene.

To come back on topic, who would have been capable of employing these textbook dissection techniques. Certainly Francis Thompson OR someone like him. Certainly not Bury or the majority of the other named suspects.

Cheers, George

Thank you George .

[GBinOz]

The Police at the time didn't know what they were doing. They didn't know who the Ripper was. McKenzie was not a Ripper victim.

With all due respect John, you are proposing that you know more than the professionals who were on the ground investigating at the time. They didn't know who the ripper was, and neither do you. You have also stated that the chances of another murderer operating at the time was virtually zero. So who killed McKenzie, the Pinchin St victim and Frances Coles? Did Bury resurrect himself to kill these women?

[GBinOz]

Its not a question of being in the minority or majority when it comes to to "Factual Evidence ". Like yourself, Herlock and Lewis have failed to grasp the reality of Thompsons exact knowledge and procedure of how Mary kellys heart was removed which he himself was able to perform.

So unless you have the "same evidence" that suggest Bury could also perform such a procedure, he still , as I've suggested is a poorer suspect than Thompson in that regard alone .

I no longer wish to debate the what ifs and maybes , I merely present the facts as that which we know to be true. All else is speculative jabbering as far as I'm concerned.

Hi Fishy,

I agree with you that this minority/majority proposition is nonsense. The factual evidence is that someone employed dissection techniques in these murders. The mobilisation of the small intestines, the deviation around the navel, the abominable hysterectomy that avoided nicking the bladder, the removal of the kidney and the extraction of the heart from the pericardium via the abdominal cavity. To attribute these abilities to the likes of Bury is absurd.

So those that wish to maintain these illusions have to come to a decision. Either they accept that these dissection procedures, conducted while kneeling beside the victim in the dark, are beyond the capabilities of their preferred suspect, or that that these procedures took place after the event. The problem with the latter alternative is that the mobilisation of the small intestines, and possibly the deviation around the navel was evident at the crime scene.

To come back on topic, who would have been capable of employing these textbook dissection techniques. Certainly Francis Thompson OR someone like him. Certainly not Bury or the majority of the other named suspects.

Cheers, George

[John Wheat]

I can't locate the reference, but I seem to recall reading that Bury told police that he had mutilated his wife because he was afraid that he would be suspected of being the ripper (make sense of that if you can). I recall that he also said that he limited his mutilation because he was squeamish. Doesn't tally with the eviscerations of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Does tally with a fantasist.

If police thought that they had proof that Bury was the ripper I would have supposed that they would have announced, vociferously, that they had solved the crime. But they were still investigating McKenzie as a possible victim. You are suggesting that the chances of more than one serial killer are virtually zero, but McKenzie, and others, were murdered after Bury was hanged, so you are statistically eliminating your own suspect.

We seem to have drifted off topic - isn't this a Thompson thread?

The Police at the time didn't know what they were doing. They didn't know who the Ripper was. McKenzie was not a Ripper victim.

[John Wheat]

I can't locate the reference, but I seem to recall reading that Bury told police that he had mutilated his wife because he was afraid that he would be suspected of being the ripper (make sense of that if you can). I recall that he also said that he limited his mutilation because he was squeamish. Doesn't tally with the eviscerations of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Does tally with a fantasist.

If police thought that they had proof that Bury was the ripper I would have supposed that they would have announced, vociferously, that they had solved the crime. But they were still investigating McKenzie as a possible victim. You are suggesting that the chances of more than one serial killer are virtually zero, but McKenzie, and others, were murdered after Bury was hanged, so you are statistically eliminating your own suspect.

We seem to have drifted off topic - isn't this a Thompson thread?

Bury never said anything about being squeamish this is completely wrong and even if he did he could be lying. With McKenzie there was a massive gap so I'm not including McKenzie as a Ripper victim. Also a number of the Whitechapel murders were committed by The Torso Killer who had been operating around London for years possibly from 1873. I should have been more specific I should have said operating in a small area of London. I'm inclined to think that there was only one violent serial killer suddenly operating in a small area of London during 1888 and that was Bury.

[John Wheat]

Its not a question of being in the minority or majority when it comes to to "Factual Evidence ". Like yourself, Herlock and Lewis have failed to grasp the reality of Thompsons exact knowledge and procedure of how Mary kellys heart was removed which he himself was able to perform.

So unless you have the "same evidence" that suggest Bury could also perform such a procedure, he still , as I've suggested is a poorer suspect than Thompson in that regard alone .

I no longer wish to debate the what ifs and maybes , I merely present the facts as that which we know to be true. All else is speculative jabbering as far as I'm concerned.

The doctors of the time couldn't agree on wether the Ripper had any medical skill. So your point is largely moot. The fact is Bury is a proven murderer and post mortem mutilator. These two facts put Bury head and shoulders above the rest of the suspects.

[FISHY1118]

I think your in a minority of one if you think Thompson a better suspect than Bury. You might want to read the above posts by Herlock and Lewis C outlining why Bury is not only a better suspect than Thompson but a better suspect than all the other suspects.

Its not a question of being in the minority or majority when it comes to to "Factual Evidence ". Like yourself, Herlock and Lewis have failed to grasp the reality of Thompsons exact knowledge and procedure of how Mary kellys heart was removed which he himself was able to perform.

So unless you have the "same evidence" that suggest Bury could also perform such a procedure, he still , as I've suggested is a poorer suspect than Thompson in that regard alone .

I no longer wish to debate the what ifs and maybes , I merely present the facts as that which we know to be true. All else is speculative jabbering as far as I'm concerned.

[Pcdunn]

I was new to Casebook when Mr. Patterson first began promoting poet Francis Thompson as JtR. I argued against his notion then. I'm very much aghast at this return of this nonsensical idea.
Next to blaming Lewis Carroll or Vincent Van Gogh, it's absurdity in the extreme. Thompson is an honored English poet, and this attempt to "cancel" his reputation for a supposed connection to Jack the Ripper is just too much!

[GBinOz]

If police thought that they had proof that Bury was the ripper I would have supposed that they would have announced, vociferously, that they had solved the crime. But they were still investigating McKenzie as a possible victim. You are suggesting that the chances of more than one serial killer are virtually zero, but McKenzie, and others, were murdered after Bury was hanged, so you are statistically eliminating your own suspect.

Oops. Sorry Lewis. The boldened narrative was for John rather than yourself. Humble apologies.

Cheers, George