The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[John Wheat]

You can disagree all you like, thats entirely up to you , and for the record im not sure you know what your talking about in regards to Thompson . Seeing how you decided to make it personal with that little dig ( which seems to be the norm around here ) ill leave you to it .

I'll stand by my opinion tho thanks all the same Thomsom makes a better suspect than bury , druitt, Maybrick , cutbush , simple due to his better means ,motive ,and opportunity. Imo

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.

[GBinOz]

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.

To be fair John, you would have to acknowledge a minority of at least two, that have so far declared themselves. Prosector's opinion was that the ripper was someone with experience in the dissection room, which would tend to exclude Bury, so perhaps a minority of at least three?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

If Bury was the purpotrayor of the attacks on Farmer, Tabram and Mylett surely it's odds on he was the Ripper. The chances of them all off a sudden being several violent serial killers at the same time in London are virtually zero.

According to MacNaghten the ripper was responsible for "five, and only five". So in his opinion there must have been at least one other person responsible for the other ten.

[GBinOz]

I don’t understand your opposition even to the suggestion of Bury as a suspect George; especially compared to Thompson. We just don’t know how much knowledge the killer had. We certainly can’t assume that Bury only had a pen knife.

My memory may be deceiving me, but I thought the knife that he used on his wife was a pen knife, and he was reputed to have slept with a pen knife under his pillow.

[Kunochan]

So I took a quick look at the Wikipedia page for Bayes theorem. Is this the kind of problem Bayesian analysis is meant to examine? There seem to be far too many variables in this case, especially variables for which a clear percentage probability cannot be assigned. I think the original writer is using the technical term "Bayesian" to pseudo-scientifically support a series of personal assumptions.

If the facts laid out above have any validity, this might be an interesting suspect. But "scientifically proven?" Please.

[GBinOz]

But since Fishy brought up motive, we should note that Bury is the only suspect known to have engaged in postmortem mutilation, so we can at least have a reasonable suspicion for him that he might have had the Ripper's motive.

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?

[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

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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?

[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 .