The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[Mike J. G.]

Can you hear the distant boos Mike?

Let's just be glad that they're distant!

[Mike J. G.]

I'm not too opposed to the idea of a couple of different killers working totally seperate from one another over the span of a year or two, as that could well be the case, but rather the idea that there were two killers simultaneously operating in the same area in the relatively short space of time between Emma Smith and MJK.

Obviously there were murders after MJ, but IMO, I'd be hesitant to at least doubt Tabram-MJK as more than one person operating in a similar style in the same area, unless we're of the opinion it was more than one person working together... Which would indicate, to me, that Emma Smith could definitely be included. I'm not even sure I'd discount McKenzie.

Emma Smith had her genitals attacked, Tabram had her genitals attacked, Nichols, Chapman, Kelly? I'm not 100% sure as she was butchered, even McKenzie had cuts to the genitals, though.

It wasn't very common to see any killer targeting the genitals of women, or getting inside their bodies, so unless it was more than one person working together, I'd be hesitant to accept that two men were doing this totally ignorant of one another.

"The signature characteristics observed in these infamous Jack the Ripper
murders were compared to a 1981–1995 cohort of 3359 homicide cases from Washington
State’s HITS database. The analysis revealed that the signature displayed in six of the
Whitechapel murders was extremely rare. There were only six records of female victims,
one a prostitute, with probed, explored, or mutilated body cavities. There were only two
cases, both females who were not prostitutes, where the body was left in an unusual posi-
tion and body cavities were explored, probed, or mutilated"

The Jack the Ripper Murders: A Modus Operandi
and Signature Analysis of the 1888–1891
Whitechapel Murders
ROBERT D. KEPPEL1
*, JOSEPH G. WEIS2
, KATHERINE M. BROWN1 and
KRISTEN WELCH1

[GBinOz]

George, if we accept your premise that the killer had to have had the dissection skills of a trained surgeon, I think that would mean that there are only 3 named suspects worthy of any consideration: Thompson, George Chapman, and Oswald Puckridge. There may be other trained surgeons, but they can be ignored for other reasons. Is it your intent to reject the possibility of the Ripper being anyone but one of these three, unless it was someone that we're not aware of? Or unless we accept Trevor's argument?

Hi Lewis,

My premise is just an opinion based on considerations which are for me ongoing. As I mentioned, I am not entirely convinced that JtR is not a composite term being applied to the crimes of more than one person. It would be fair to comment that most posters would accept that the mutilations visited upon Chapman and Eddowes indicate that the same murderer was involved. However, this is from the Echo Oct 1, 1888:

THE OPINION OF THE DOCTORS.
Although there appears to be very little doubt that both this crime and the murder of the unfortunate in Berner-street about the same time is the work of the miscreant who perpetrated the previous tragedies, the doctors are of opinion that the murder in Mitre-court is a "brutal imitation" of the Hanbury-street murder. At the post-mortem examination, there were- it is stated- indications of an attempt having been made to remove the organ alluded to, but nothing was missing from the body. It is also asserted that there are indications discovered that mutilation was evidently meant in the case of the Berner-street victim.

Then there is the comment by Wynne Baxter in his summation of the Stride Inquest and referring to her injury:

There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator;

I asked my daughter, an experienced theatre nurse, to look at the autopsies of Chapman and Eddowes and she asked if there was any theory that these murders were by different people. In her opinion the Chapman injuries were what would be made by a butcher and the Eddowes injuries by someone experienced in the dissection of human females. My hesitancy about her opinion is that the mobilisation of Chapman's intestines is traditionally considered a medical procedure. I am in the process of re-examining Prosector's comments in this regard.

To come back to your question. My understanding is that Oswald Puckeridge was a pharmacological chemist. I have Chapman (Klosowski) as a person of interest, but I would consider someone like Thompson as worthy of consideration for the Eddowes and Kelly murders.

We don't know, and probably never will, how many killers were involved in the Whitechapel murders, nor how many would fall within the appellation of Jack the Ripper. My current opinion is that there were at least four, but that is JMO. YMMV.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

That's about where I am, Abby. If someone did have a medical or butcher's background, that's an argument for their suspect status, but we're far from certain that the RIpper had to have formal training or work in those areas. And Thompson is a longshot, but not ridiculous. I'd say about like Tumblety.

agree. I reserve the ridiculous tag for suspects like Van Gogh, gull, royal conspiracy, maybrick etc.

[Lewis C]

the medical experts were divided then as they still are as to how much, if any, surgical skill the ripper had. there really isnt even a consensus to this day. therefore, its foolish imho to rule out any suspect who didnt have surgical, or even medical experience. but its definitely a check mark in favor of a suspect if they did.

I agree with rj, its no surprise the drs of the time tried to distance tje ripper from their profession, and ive said it many times.
I also agree with herlocks chess analogy that the killer might have been doing what was working without knowing it professional/technically and either got lucky and or had some previous experience with cutting up bodies and or looking at anatomy books.
You would be surprised how many serial killers with no medical experience whatsoever accomplished in their post mortem mutilations.

But i also held alot of respect for Prosectors opinion also. And contemp police were looking for suspects with medical knowledge. So bottom line is we still just dont know...opinion still divided among experts.

Re Thompson vs Bury?

Bury by a mile. similar sig of post mortem mutilation via knife to the midsection, so also probably same motive (as lewis said ). the same motive all post mortem mutilating serial killers have... they enjoy it. its their sick fantasy acted upon. He Lived in the area. police person of interest. frequented prostitutes, history of violence. he spoke of the ripper.

But i also dont think thompson is a ridiculous suspect, but i would mark him as a long shot. he had the medical background, probably was in the area, maybe even near millers court. history with prostitutes. his poetry may indicate a real sick bloody fantasy. but no real connection to case, no history of violence. like i said... long shot.

but great thread!

That's about where I am, Abby. If someone did have a medical or butcher's background, that's an argument for their suspect status, but we're far from certain that the RIpper had to have formal training or work in those areas. And Thompson is a longshot, but not ridiculous. I'd say about like Tumblety.

[Abby Normal]

the medical experts were divided then as they still are as to how much, if any, surgical skill the ripper had. there really isnt even a consensus to this day. therefore, its foolish imho to rule out any suspect who didnt have surgical, or even medical experience. but its definitely a check mark in favor of a suspect if they did.

I agree with rj, its no surprise the drs of the time tried to distance tje ripper from their profession, and ive said it many times.
I also agree with herlocks chess analogy that the killer might have been doing what was working without knowing it professional/technically and either got lucky and or had some previous experience with cutting up bodies and or looking at anatomy books.
You would be surprised how many serial killers with no medical experience whatsoever accomplished in their post mortem mutilations.

But i also held alot of respect for Prosectors opinion also. And contemp police were looking for suspects with medical knowledge. So bottom line is we still just dont know...opinion still divided among experts.

Re Thompson vs Bury?

Bury by a mile. similar sig of post mortem mutilation via knife to the midsection, so also probably same motive (as lewis said ). the same motive all post mortem mutilating serial killers have... they enjoy it. its their sick fantasy acted upon. He Lived in the area. police person of interest. frequented prostitutes, history of violence. he spoke of the ripper.

But i also dont think thompson is a ridiculous suspect, but i would mark him as a long shot. he had the medical background, probably was in the area, maybe even near millers court. history with prostitutes. his poetry may indicate a real sick bloody fantasy. but no real connection to case, no history of violence. like i said... long shot.

but great thread!

[Lewis C]

The alternative to the killer having any dissection skills is that those skills were possessed by someone after the event, which is basically what Trevor is proposing. I don't tend to believe the killer was a mad doctor either, but I entertain Prosector's opinion that he was a medical student. I also suspect that he was a student who became obsessed with dissection, but am not convinced that he was responsible for all of the ripper murders. JMO.

George, if we accept your premise that the killer had to have had the dissection skills of a trained surgeon, I think that would mean that there are only 3 named suspects worthy of any consideration: Thompson, George Chapman, and Oswald Puckridge. There may be other trained surgeons, but they can be ignored for other reasons. Is it your intent to reject the possibility of the Ripper being anyone but one of these three, unless it was someone that we're not aware of? Or unless we accept Trevor's argument?

[Lewis C]

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.

I talked about motive. What you're talking about here has nothing to do with motive.

[Lewis C]

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?

If we assume that everything that Bury said to the police is true, that would tend to exonerate him as the Ripper, but I don't think that we can assume that.

I don't think that anyone is saying that the police thought that they had proof that Bury was the Ripper. I do think that there's a good chance that McKenzie was a Ripper victim, and if she was, Bury couldn't have been the Ripper. Bury is my top suspect because I consider McKenzie as a Ripper victim to be just a strong possibility, not a near certainty.

[Lewis C]

bingo Lewis
totally agree...good post!

Thanks, Abby!

[Herlock Sholmes]

We could say the same about Barrett!

Can you hear the distant boos Mike?

[Mike J. G.]

But you could say the same of any writer of horror fiction George. Would we suggest that Shaun Hutson was serial killer material? I’d always be wary of equating works of imaginative fiction with what the writer actually thinks or feels.

We could say the same about Barrett!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thompson was a drug addict. You might care to read his poem "The Nightmare of the Witch Babies" to get an idea of the workings of his mind and his fantasy of the noble knight ridding the world of demon-ridden witches:

http://www.dxsuperpremium.com/2012/0...ch-babies.html

But you could say the same of any writer of horror fiction George. Would we suggest that Shaun Hutson was serial killer material? I’d always be wary of equating works of imaginative fiction with what the writer actually thinks or feels.

[Mike J. G.]

I guess you're talking about Liverpool, but who is "Sir Jim"?

I'm not sure you want to go down that rabbit hole, mate.

M*ybrick

[Mike J. G.]

The alternative to the killer having any dissection skills is that those skills were possessed by someone after the event, which is basically what Trevor is proposing. I don't tend to believe the killer was a mad doctor either, but I entertain Prosector's opinion that he was a medical student. I also suspect that he was a student who became obsessed with dissection, but am not convinced that he was responsible for all of the ripper murders. JMO.

I don't necessarily discount that the killer had experience in cutting up bodies, I just don't feel confident stating the manner in which he gained that experience. I think he was interested in innards, like Dahmer was. He could have been a knackerer, a butcher, a mortician's apprentice, etc.

It's the medical knowledge angle I'm mostly opposed to, simply because we just don't know. It'd be great if we did.