The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[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]

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.

[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 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

[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.

[FISHY1118]

I think this aspect has been understated. Thompson's father complained of being called on to fund what he considered to be excessive numbers of cadavers for his son to dissect. Muscle memory would have been a factor in the removal of Eddowes uterus in the dark WITHOUT damage to the bladder, and the removal of Kelly's heart from the pericardium via the abdomen - a little known technique taught by Virchow to, among others, Francis Thompson.

"Means" . One could easily remove Bury as the ripper on this fact alone , unless there is some evidence to show specifically that he knew how to perform this technique.

[Abby Normal]

Agreed John. I don't focus much on motive when thinking about suspects in this case, because I think the killer's motive was that he enjoyed mutilating women, and for most suspects, there's no way of knowing if they would have had that fetish. 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. Is there a reasonable suspicion for any other suspect in this case that he might have had this motive? So if we're talking about motive alone, Bury not only beats Thompson, but also any other suspect that one would care to name.

bingo Lewis
totally agree...good post!

[FISHY1118]

I completely disagree. I think you are wrong. I'm not even sure you know what your talking about as regards Bury.

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

[Lewis C]

Thompson clearly had medical knowledge. But so did the Doctors first at the scene of these murders. If I interpret their conclusions and first impressions at these scenes they did not believe a medically trained person performed the murders.

I could be wrong but there were only 3 suspects that lived in the area and can be proved - Chapman, Kosminski and Levy. Chapman and Kosminski both immigrants and Levy the only suspect born in Whitechapel.

As far as the Police and Witnesses are concerned they either had a complete bias toward immigrant Jews or some of what they said was likely true. If you want to talk mathmatical probability then consider the word foriegner in the equation. I would also consider the Legacy Jewish Englishman who had ample reason to implicate immigrant Jews. The Jewish Chronicle, as the voice of the Jewish Englishman, was not sympathetic. However would a gentile witness be able to distinguish one Jewish man from another? Only if they knew them possibly.

What is the mathmatical probability that the killer lived in the general area of the murders? My guess would be high since he hunted the same area and managed to always just disappear. The women all lived near each other and frequented the same pubs. Edmund Reid believed the killer did as well. Who knew the habits of the Whitechapel residents better than Reid? Its not clear he should be dismissed easily.

Modern day Police officers I know have told me that the higher probability of a murder is someone the person knew. With Serial Killers it was more about their childhood history and patterns of behavior over time. Prostitutes have always been easy prey. As are young boys and men. There are patterns that speak to the killer. Unfortunately not until after they were caught. In defense of using probability models its understandable why you might use it today.

if Thompson or any other suspect was living in Whitechapel at the time and it can be proven then I think they would have to be considered a viable suspect.

I dont believe this was a medically trained person. Although they were likely exposed to blood and guts and detached from
any emotion to the murder. They cut before and Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were the same method. Had they done that before?

My observations. Thompson is a likely candidate if there is proof he lived there.

[Bolding added]

Hi Patrick,

Going from memory, I believe that in addition to the three that you mentioned, David Cohen, Hyam Hyams, Albert Bachert, Edward Buckley, Francis Tumblety, John Richardson, and Joseph Barnett lived in the area. Depending on how large you define the area, you might be able to add Lechmere, Bury, and Cutbush too. I don't know if he had a permanent residence, but George Hutchinson was certainly in the area the night of Kelly's murder. Not sure where Charles le Grand lived, but he spent considerable time in the area.

[Lewis C]

Very few suspects fit the Psych Profiles as well as Bury if any. Admittedly being in London at the time is not much of a plus point but a number of suspects weren't even in London at the time. You forgot Postmortem mutilator. How many other suspects were proven murderers that performed Postmortem mutilation?

Agreed John. I don't focus much on motive when thinking about suspects in this case, because I think the killer's motive was that he enjoyed mutilating women, and for most suspects, there's no way of knowing if they would have had that fetish. 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. Is there a reasonable suspicion for any other suspect in this case that he might have had this motive? So if we're talking about motive alone, Bury not only beats Thompson, but also any other suspect that one would care to name.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I have found a little more information about Thompson in 1888. He was traced and "rescued" by Wilfred Meynell after sighting some of his poetry, about May or June 1888. He had spent three years as a vagrant and drug addict, and Meynell arranged his admission to St Bartholomews Hospital shortly afterwards, where he was described as "in a wretched state, barely able to walk, and completely withdrawn from society". On his release from hospital after a few weeks, he was taken in and resided with the Meynells. If this is accurate, and I believe it is, he was somewhat weak, rehabilitating and living with the Meynells through much of the rest of 1888.

He seems to be a very unlikely candidate for JtR on this information.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Thompson was prescribed laudanum in 1879 for a serious lung infection, he became an addict, was not in good health, and became a vagrant for three years, before being rehabilitated by Wilfred Meynell in 1888 - exact date would obviously be helpful, but I don't have it! Very possibly the spell in hospital was immediately before, or just after he was taken in by Meynell. There must be some genuine doubt that he was fit and strong enough to be JtR.

Part of the evidence against him is that he is thought by some to be the "Mr Moring" mentioned by R. Thurston Hopkins in his memoirs, said to be a friend of Mary Jane Kelly, and a drug addicted poet. However, many consider Ernest Dowson to be a likelier candidate, another poet with addictions, but he was also notorious for taking long nocturnal walks through back alleys, and for his associations with prostitutes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

We have no evidence that Thompson was a violent man - Bury was. He attacked a woman with a knife.

Thompson never murdered anyone as far as we know - Bury did (even though some appear to take an “oh hum” attitude to this fact which I find a little strange in a murder case.)

We can’t place Thompson in the East End at the time of the murders with any certainty - we certainly can place Bury there.

The murder of women sadly isn’t rare - post mortem mutilation is however.


There’s no competition. Bury is a worthy suspect. Thompson is a case of taking someone alive at the time, finding that he was a troubled man, and then weaving a fantasy around him.

There’s nothing about Thompson that raises an eyebrow. Another non-suspect.

I’ll retract the ‘non-suspect’ part of my post which might have been a little harsh (especially considering some of the suspects that we have). I just find the blurb in the opening post an annoying and pretty low marketing ploy. Nothing about Thompson leads me personally to suspect him would be, I think, a better way for me to put it. If something further was discovered about him maybe I’d find him more of a possible?

[John Wheat]

I don’t know about that John but I’ve never understood a reluctance when it comes to Bury. I’m not saying that he was the ripper or that everyone should accept him as such but can we imagine any police enquiry today looking into the murder and mutilation of women where the police had a guy who murdered and mutilated a women and was living next to the murder sites…and they just said “so what?” They would have pushed other suspects out of the way to get to him. He might have had an alibi but he’d have been the first guy on their list for a friendly chat. It’s not proven but there’s a fair chance that Kelly was the final victim - Bury left London not long after - troubled childhood - mother in an asylum - heavy drinker - violent to woman - linked to prostitutes.

I added this bit of speculation a few years ago John, I don’t know if you recall it. Catherine Eddowes reckoned that she knew who the killer was. If true you would assume that she would have had to have known that person reasonable well so less chance of it being a one off customer. So maybe she was in a pub one night in the East End when she heard a Black Country accent just like her own and she and the man got talking, had a drink together and got to know each other. Bury was from Stourbridge and Eddowes was from Wolverhampton.

Great post Herlock

I think Bury gets overlooked because he was an ordinary loser. He's not remotely glamorous. He was essentially a thug who graduated to murder and may well have been Jack.

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

You've put it better than I could Herlock.

Cheers John

I don’t know about that John but I’ve never understood a reluctance when it comes to Bury. I’m not saying that he was the ripper or that everyone should accept him as such but can we imagine any police enquiry today looking into the murder and mutilation of women where the police had a guy who murdered and mutilated a women and was living next to the murder sites…and they just said “so what?” They would have pushed other suspects out of the way to get to him. He might have had an alibi but he’d have been the first guy on their list for a friendly chat. It’s not proven but there’s a fair chance that Kelly was the final victim - Bury left London not long after - troubled childhood - mother in an asylum - heavy drinker - violent to woman - linked to prostitutes.

I added this bit of speculation a few years ago John, I don’t know if you recall it. Catherine Eddowes reckoned that she knew who the killer was. If true you would assume that she would have had to have known that person reasonable well so less chance of it being a one off customer. So maybe she was in a pub one night in the East End when she heard a Black Country accent just like her own and she and the man got talking, had a drink together and got to know each other. Bury was from Stourbridge and Eddowes was from Wolverhampton.