The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[JeffHamm]

Apologies, not trying to hijack the thread here but I have seen this suggestion numerous times. Wouldn't this narrow the field of known suspects down to one?

If so, also worth reiterating this rather curious 'coincidence':

Ellen: ‘On the inner side of the right labium was a wound 2 inches in length, penetrating the skin. Beginning about an inch behind the anus was an incised wound running forwards and to the left, into the perineum, and dividing the sphincter muscle’.

Eddowes: ‘The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum’.

Obviously, 'very few people' also includes the 'unknown' suspects, but of the known suspects...

Hi Aethelwulf,

Also don't want to divert the thread, but a single response should be fine. Bury's not a bad suspect, and as you say, he shows that he's willing to engage in some pretty horrific behaviours. That could be viewed as a point in his favour. While one point does not solve a case, it is a least a point in favour. Personally, I'm not suspect-identity focused, mostly because I do not think there is sufficient evidence to really get that far. Something new would have to be discovered I think, but that's just me, and I'm certainly not suggesting you don't follow your interests. Who knows, you may prove me wrong.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hello George,

I hear your point about Chapman/Eddowes but I the way I look at it is 2 middle aged women/ both killed outdoors/both killed within a mile of each other/ both killed during the short time period of ripper killings/ both had their throats cut/ both left on display legs apart/ both with abdominal mutilations/ both with intestines pulled out.

These are hardly everyday murders. The odds alone of there being 2 killers for these to women mus be vanishingly small.

Hi Herlock,

The injuries visited upon these poor desperate women are unimaginable to anyone with a sense of morals and justice. But ask yourself, were the Thames Torso murders by the same hand? What about McKenzie and Coles? Once you open yourself to consider whether there was more than one person capable of these abhorrent obscenities, you have to ask yourself - how many were there. In our modern era we are aware of the existance of copycats, and it is to this that Baxter alludes, and he was aware of the similarities. I am not saying that Chapman and Eddows were necessarily by different hands, just that some major players at the time raised the possibility. There were eleven whitechapel murders, but how many whitechapel murderers? What are the odds that one man perpetrated them all?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Apologies, not trying to hijack the thread here but I have seen this suggestion numerous times. Wouldn't this narrow the field of known suspects down to one?

If so, also worth reiterating this rather curious 'coincidence':

Ellen: ‘On the inner side of the right labium was a wound 2 inches in length, penetrating the skin. Beginning about an inch behind the anus was an incised wound running forwards and to the left, into the perineum, and dividing the sphincter muscle’.

Eddowes: ‘The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum’.

Obviously, 'very few people' also includes the 'unknown' suspects, but of the known suspects...

Hi Aethelwulf,

I think that most posters are aware that you have one suspect based on medical details. Are you aware that several of the victims had a procedure performed upon them known as the Virchow dissection? This procedure was rarely taught in medical circles, but one of its students was Francis Thompson. Perhaps this is an avenue that you may explore?

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Herlock,

The injuries visited upon these poor desperate women are unimaginable to anyone with a sense of morals and justice. But ask yourself, were the Thames Torso murders by the same hand? What about McKenzie and Coles? Once you open yourself to consider whether there was more than one person capable of these abhorrent obscenities, you have to ask yourself - how many were there. In our modern era we are aware of the existance of copycats, and it is to this that Baxter alludes, and he was aware of the similarities. I am not saying that Chapman and Eddows were necessarily by different hands, just that some major players at the time raised the possibility. There were eleven whitechapel murders, but how many whitechapel murderers? What are the odds that one man perpetrated them all?

Cheers, George

Hi George and Herlock,

One thing, though, as weird as it may seem, there are significantly more people capable of committing the act of dismembering a body than those who would engage in abdominal explorations as in Chapman and Eddowes. It is not that unheard of for someone, after committing an otherwise fairly "clean" murder, to then decide they have to dismember the body for disposal. So, unless there is something unique about the dismemberment, it is not a sure sign indication that the same murderer is involved. Strictly speaking, of course, one could argue nothing is as any two people could conceivably perform the same behaviours, however, the overall pattern of probable strangulation, deep throat cutting on the left side*, followed by opening of the abdominal cavity and removing intestines, and then removing and taking internal organs, is so incredibly rare that it would really require something evidential to suggest it was two different people - the default, because it is the more probable, is that it is the same person.

Personally, I think McKenzie does warrant a closer look. If it is the same person, then it's a bit hard to explain the dramatic de-escalation with regards to the extent of her mutilations, but if I recall correctly (and there's no guarentee), I seem to have some memory that the doctor's thought the knife involved might not have been up to more extensive use? (either a bit dull, or not long enough? something like that?) If so, then it could be he didn't have the right knife with him on that occasion, but even then, I would think that would frustrate him all the more and something more recognizable would have occurred quite soon afterwards. But, those are just ideas, and perhaps I'm just trying to convince myself to dig out the books and relook at her case.

(* although Chapman and Nichols also had a 2nd cut that encircled the head, this may have been two failed attempts at decapitation, after which he gave up on other murders - just speculating here)

- Jeff

[Mark J D]

Are you aware that several of the victims had a procedure performed upon them known as the Virchow dissection? This procedure was rarely taught in medical circles, but one of its students was Francis Thompson. Perhaps this is an avenue that you may explore?

Hi George. Sounds interesting! Is this the thing...? Virchow Method – MEDICO LEGAL TRAINING (mlt.gov.np)

Bests,

Mark D.

[GBinOz]

Hi George. Sounds interesting! Is this the thing...? Virchow Method – MEDICO LEGAL TRAINING (mlt.gov.np)

Bests,

Mark D.

Hi Mark,

Not being in the medical field, I have no idea of the actual procedure. I should have stated before that this was presented by Richard Paterson as a unique rarely taught procedure, that was used on some victims, to support his proposal of Francis Thompson as a viable suspect. According to Richard's research, Thompson had six years of medical training during which he was taught this rare procedure. I was raising this as a parallel to Aethelwulf's theories regarding similar medical injuries.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi Jeff,

While I broadly agree with your comments regards dismemberment, I believe that there were similarities with the way the bodies were dismembered and the instrument believed to be used to postulate that they were by the same hand.

The MO of the canonical murders seemed to be strangulation as the means of death followed by a ritual like procedure which commenced with the throat cutting. The degree of abberation required to carry out these injuries would, one would hope, be confined to very few. Of the suspects that we know of, few had this known degree of viciousness - Deeming, Bury, Chapman?

As far as the de-escalation goes, one theory is that insanity (possibly due to syphilis) weakened the killer to the point of being incapable of the previous extent of injuries.

Cheers, George

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Aethelwulf,

I think that most posters are aware that you have one suspect based on medical details. Are you aware that several of the victims had a procedure performed upon them known as the Virchow dissection? This procedure was rarely taught in medical circles, but one of its students was Francis Thompson. Perhaps this is an avenue that you may explore?

Cheers, George

Call me skeptical but this seems like a bit of a red herring. Having followed your link it seems like the Virchow method is noting more than the sequential removal of organs - hardly very specific or diagnostic. In fact, I can't help thinking that someone with no medical training might approach the task in that manner.

As for why I suspect him, the injuries are only one factor of many (but I will direct you to my original post on the William Bury:Jack the Ripper thread so as not to divert the topic).

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

While I broadly agree with your comments regards dismemberment, I believe that there were similarities with the way the bodies were dismembered and the instrument believed to be used to postulate that they were by the same hand.

The MO of the canonical murders seemed to be strangulation as the means of death followed by a ritual like procedure which commenced with the throat cutting. The degree of abberation required to carry out these injuries would, one would hope, be confined to very few. Of the suspects that we know of, few had this known degree of viciousness - Deeming, Bury, Chapman?

As far as the de-escalation goes, one theory is that insanity (possibly due to syphilis) weakened the killer to the point of being incapable of the previous extent of injuries.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I agree that the de-escalation one would have to explain if McKenzie were a JtR victim is not an insurmountable problem, only intended to highlight it as something that does require an explanation. Her injuries were much less than even the least of the mutilated C5 (Nichols) but clearly more than Stride. Medical opinion at the time was divided, Dr. Phillips thought her not a Ripper victim, Dr. Bond in favour. Some saw signs that McKenzie's killer was left handed, though that was not a universal consensus, but it would point against her killer being the right handed Ripper.

Given we are again looking at a murder in the streets, activity in the area would be important to go over. While we often debate "interruption" in the case of Stride, it seems to me that there's an argument to make that JtR was sort of "interrupted" at all of the murders. With Nichols we have Cross/Lechmere and then Paul's arrival, if anyone had passed earlier and not noticed Polly or just walked on (as Cross/Lechmere appears to almost have, and Paul appears that he would have), then Cross/Lechmere or possibly someone we don't know about, could have interrupted JtR at that location, resulting in her mutilations not reaching the level of Chapman's. With Chapman, we know of the activity in the yard next door, but given the location, he had nowhere to flee and may have simply been lucky that he wasn't spotted behind the fence at the time he was putting her to the ground (which is what I think the "bump" on the fence could have been). With Eddowes, it is possible he fled Mitre Square due to PC Harvey's patrol of Church Passage, or possibly when Morris opened the door of the warehouse during his cleaning (this appears to be at about the same time as PC Harvey's patrol, so whichever came first). All of those events could be classified as an interruption, they just appear to have occurred after he committed quite extensive mutilations. With Stride, the argument is that the interruption came earlier (say, at a similar time as with Chapman, only now he's not trapped in a backyard and can leave the area). With McKenzie, therefore, we may be seeing an interruption shortly after he began mutilations, although the injuries to her throat appear to be shallower than those inflicted upon the C5, there were two of them, and some things could be explained by him simply having a different knife at that time.

Deeming, while he did cut the throats of his family, did not mutilate them and knife murders of family members are not uncommon. Also, he was in South Africa during the JtR crimes, which I think tends to work against him as a suspect.

I don't know all that much about Bury, other than he murdered his wife while in Scotland, etc. I'm not well versed on what evidence we have with regards to his whereabouts during the Whitechapel murders. I suppose I should look at him as well as at McKenzie.

Chapman also seems quite the different character from JtR. Chapman was certainly cruel and vile, but he appears to be more of a murderer for financial gain, and his use of poison served that purpose as it would be known his victim had "been ill quite some time." It's harder to explain away "she suddenly exploded". At the same time, his ability to slowly watch his victim suffer does indicate a very sadistic streak, but that too may work against him as he appears to relish in the long drawn out suffering, which the Whitechapel murders would not provide. I was in Hastings in 2020 and the shop where Chapman had his "musical shaves" is still standing and is now a bookshop. You can see in the window on the right side where they have a flyer describing that as they were promoting a book written by a local on Chapman. I was going to pick up a copy, but ended up so busy with other activities that I didn't get a chance to go back. I do recall, though, the sea food in Hastings was very good. Had some wonderful sole, but I digress.



Anyway, as I say, McKenzie seems to me to be well worth a consideration in terms of linkage, and on the surface, the aspects that differ do not appear to be insurmountable. However, just because one can come up with an explanation for the differences isn't the same as having evidence to support that explanation.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Deeming, while he did cut the throats of his family, did not mutilate them and knife murders of family members are not uncommon. Also, he was in South Africa during the JtR crimes, which I think tends to work against him as a suspect.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I suspect that Deeming would have considered the revenge killing of prostitutes ( he blamed them for his syphilis) to require different treatment to his family members. The latest research by ex-Scotland yard detective Robin Napper, has cast doubt on the idea that Deeming was in South Africa in the later part of 1888. One of his children would have been conceived at that time and it is known that his wife was then in Britain. It was reported that a woman in London identified him from a photo in a newspaper as a man named Lawson, one of his known aliases, who was with her the night before Eddows was murdered, and as being overly interested in following the Ripper murders. According to Napper he confessed that he was the Ripper to his fellow inmates prior to his hanging, and to his solicitor that he had killed Eddows and Kelly. His photo bore a striking resemblance to the sketch of Astrakhan man and he is said to have "strange eyes", as was observed by Bowyer of a man he saw on the night of Kelly's murder. Deeming was known to travel with a large collection of knives and a small hatchet. Interesting that it was Deeming's death mask that was in the Black Museum labelled as the face of Jack the Ripper.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I suspect that Deeming would have considered the revenge killing of prostitutes ( he blamed them for his syphilis) to require different treatment to his family members. The latest research by ex-Scotland yard detective Robin Napper, has cast doubt on the idea that Deeming was in South Africa in the later part of 1888. One of his children would have been conceived at that time and it is known that his wife was then in Britain. It was reported that a woman in London identified him from a photo in a newspaper as a man named Lawson, one of his known aliases, who was with her the night before Eddows was murdered, and as being overly interested in following the Ripper murders. According to Napper he confessed that he was the Ripper to his fellow inmates prior to his hanging, and to his solicitor that he had killed Eddows and Kelly. His photo bore a striking resemblance to the sketch of Astrakhan man and he is said to have "strange eyes", as was observed by Bowyer of a man he saw on the night of Kelly's murder. Deeming was known to travel with a large collection of knives and a small hatchet. Interesting that it was Deeming's death mask that was in the Black Museum labelled as the face of Jack the Ripper.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

That's interesting. Now that you mention it, I thought I had seen some posts a while ago suggesting that Deeming might have been in the area, but I hadn't seen what evidence that was based upon, if any. I think I probably viewed them as "well, what if ..." type ideas. Some of the above evidence would be rather weak. I mean, most people were "overly interested" in the Ripper murders, and the memory of how interested he was would get magnified once he was arrested for murdering his family. We're also relying upon a memory of the date he stayed with her, which also is concerning. Do we know where this woman lived though? In a modern investigation, I suppose one would want to verify that the child was actually his, but I suppose if there were any question to the contrary, he wasn't the sort of person one would expect to "forgive and forget a momentary transgression while he was away at sea" type thing. I'm assuming Napper has a book out and was wondering if it's worth looking for? Have you read it?

Anyway, one other thing. If Deeming is proposed to have murdered prostitutes as a revenge type thing, then the murder of his family becomes a different matter, which starts to weaken the weight that murdering his family has towards him being JtR in the first place! Also, referring to himself as JtR amongst inmates sounds a bit like bravado (I'm the biggest, scariest, guy in here so don't mess with me, sort of thing). Still, I would be interested in seeing what Napper has uncovered.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

Let's say Eddowes did in fact believe she knew the name of the killer and wasn't just talking up, as people do. Either she was right, and really did know who the killer was, or she was wrong (which to me seems the more probable of the two, but that just reflects my personal view).

Ok, let's look at those two possibilities, starting with she was correct.
What follows from your outline is that the actual killer of Chapman hears of her knowledge, and kills and mutilates her, in much the same way as he killed and mutilated Chapman, with an increase in the extent and breadth of her injuries. In this case, however, that means the same person has killed Chapman and Eddowes.

Therefore, you must be assuming that Eddowes was incorrect (and as I say, that does seem more likely, she didn't actually know, even if she believed she did), and the person she believed was the killer was not the murderer of Annie Chapman.
However, that means that some other person got wind that she might accuse them. Now, all that person has to be able to do is be able to verify where they were on the night Chapman or Nichols was killed, and they know that they are safe from such an accusation. Therefore, you must be assuming this unknown person, for some reason, is unable to verify where they were on either of those dates. Moreover, this person must somehow know that Eddowes has not told anyone else the name of who it is she supposedly suspects (otherwise, her death would potentially draw them in as someone the police would want to investigate).

Moreover, this person then must decide that the best way for them to avoid being falsely accused of murdering and mutilating both Nichols and Chapman, is to murder Eddowes and to attempt to recreate the mutilations. Mutilation murders of this type are extremely rare because very few people capable of murder are also capable of performing post-mortem mutilations. Therefore, Eddowes's "suspect" would have to be one of these very rare people. Furthermore, this alternative mutilator must also be someone who is willing to perform these mutilations in the street, and was willing to perform even more extensive mutilations than those performed on Chapman, including the removal of her uterus and her kidney. While removing the former could be argued to reflect an attempt to replicate that which was know concerning the Chapman murder, the removal of the kidney has no precedent. We also have to assume that this alternative killer decided to base their mutilations on the Chapman case, and not the Nichols' case, where the abdominal mutilations did not involve the removal of any organs, nor did they require the extensive opening of the gut cavity. Rather, they could be replicated much more quickly. Also, it is easier to accept that someone willing to cut a person's throat might also be willing to cut their abdomen, but to open the abdomen and handle the internal organs, such as cutting and placing parts of the intestines, the removal of the uterus, and kidney, seems harder to accept when all of these actions both increase the time at the scene and would also tend to be aversive to someone who is not deviant and obtains some sort of pleasure or positive feedback from performing these actions (which I think is a fair assumption to make with regards to Chapman's killer at least). In other words, we end up having to presume that Eddowes' "suspect", though not being the killer of Chapman and Nichols, nevertheless had very similar characteristics in that they are someone who must be:

1) unable to provide an alibi for either the Nichols or Chapman murder
2) willing to risk murder in the streets
3) willing to remain at the crime scene after committing murder
4) willing to cut open the abdomen and handle the internal organs
5) willing to then take organs (highly incriminating evidence) away from the scene
6) willing to do both 4 & 5 despite neither being necessary to replicate the Nichols' murder, which would be sufficient to divert attention away from themself.
7) willing to murder her without being able to be sure his name has not been given to someone else.
......7a) If it has he must decide this does not put him at risk for the police to check him out if Eddowes is murdered.
......7b) He must decide 7a despite the fact that if he is wrong, his inability to clear himself of either the Nichols and Chapman murder (see point 1) becomes even more complicated as he would be unable to clear himself for this one as well

To me, the improbability of those points all being true, combined with the fact we end up having to suggest someone who has so many characteristics similar to the killer of Chapman, and who also continues the escalation in the mutilations performed that is suggested by the Nichols -> Chapman sequence, that it becomes untenable to suggest the person was not the same person.

And if the person was not the same person, and given it is unlikely Eddowes' actually knew the murderer's identity, it seems more likely that Eddowes herself was just talking it up when she made such a claim, meaning she didn't really have anyone in mind. And talking it up is a common human behaviour. We only know of Eddowes' claim because she was murdered. I'm sure that other such claims were being made by other people who were not unfortunate enough to become victims. For example, it is recorded that Mary Kelly also expressed some fear about the murders, which is hardly surprising, and I'm sure that too was very common. We have reports that there was a wide spread sense of fear, and Kelly's statement would reflect that. We also know the police were getting all sorts of "tips" and "suggestions" as to who JtR was, meaning there were many people who "thought they knew the identity of the murderer", and in all likelihood Eddowes' statement is just a specific example of that too.

It is therefore highly improbable that JtR would even have known that Eddowes' made such a claim, nor is there any reason to suspect her claim, above all others, would be worth singling out.

Given that, it would appear that Eddowes was simply chosen at random, and was murdered by the same person who murdered Nichols and Chapman. The one suggestion that has been made that might point to different killers has to do with the evaluation of the mutilations (typically with regards to the removal of the uterus). This, however, may simply reflect the difference in the lighting conditions at the two crime scenes, and also the likelihood that the mutilations were performed more quickly in the case of Eddowes My last suggestion is based on the suggestion that he worked faster so he could do even more without substantially increasing the amount of time he is willing to spend at the crime scene. That's obviously something I cannot know if it is true or not, so should be viewed as a hypothesis (working faster, etc) and it's implications if true (he wanted to do more in roughly the same time period).

Anyway, I don't expect you to change your mind, nor to agree with me, but, for what it's worth, I enjoyed working through the logic and implications of your idea.

- Jeff

I cant possibly address each point being made Jeff, ...so in broad strokes Ill give you my take on Eddowes. Purely theoretical of course. I believe the story that she intended to give a name to the police, told by her ex landlady, was true. I also believe the individual she thought of was in some way connected to Irish self rule causes locally. Someone perhaps through her Conway days. I think she arranged, Friday night...(too many issues with what she and Kelly actually did Friday night,,,the boots were not pawned as Kelly claimed for one), to meet with people or persons representing this Irish connected fellow, to see if she could negotiate hush money instead of turning the man in, they bought her drinks to find out exactly what she did know, and after leaving her plastered on the streets Saturday afternoon they had decided she was to be silenced. They left her with an agreement to meet later that night....maybe at midnight...and since she is incarcerated unexpectedly...she is very late getting to the meeting point. Hence the hand on the chest with Sailor man, "thanks for waiting, I thought you would leave"...who I also think may have a connection to the Post Office robbery fellas working that weekend. Right around the corner from Mitre Square.

I dont think the killer of Annie was the man Kate thought he was, but I do think that the way they left Kate was to suggest it was him.

This murder to me has the possibility of cross pollination with issues being addressed at the Parnell Commission.

Thats my theory. I can spell out why each characteristic is as I suggest, but the evidence itself drives the conclusions, so not too hard to see how "facts" and then extrapolation works together.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,
I'm assuming Napper has a book out and was wondering if it's worth looking for? Have you read it?
- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I'm not aware of a book but I think Napper's research is quite recent and I would expect him to follow up his Youtube presentations with a book at a later stage.

There is some weakness in evidence, but a great many suspects fall into that category. I find the resemblance of the sketch made of Astrakan man with that of the studio photo of Deeming to be quite remarkable. He makes my list of top 5 suspects.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I'm not aware of a book but I think Napper's research is quite recent and I would expect him to follow up his Youtube presentations with a book at a later stage.

There is some weakness in evidence, but a great many suspects fall into that category. I find the resemblance of the sketch made of Astrakan man with that of the studio photo of Deeming to be quite remarkable. He makes my list of top 5 suspects.

Cheers, George

Ah, ok. I'll have a snoop around for his presentations. No doubt there are some shaky bits, but that's to be expected. Cheers.

- Jeff

[Harry D]

Personally, I think McKenzie does warrant a closer look. If it is the same person, then it's a bit hard to explain the dramatic de-escalation with regards to the extent of her mutilations, but if I recall correctly (and there's no guarentee), I seem to have some memory that the doctor's thought the knife involved might not have been up to more extensive use? (either a bit dull, or not long enough? something like that?) If so, then it could be he didn't have the right knife with him on that occasion, but even then, I would think that would frustrate him all the more and something more recognizable would have occurred quite soon afterwards. But, those are just ideas, and perhaps I'm just trying to convince myself to dig out the books and relook at her case.

I don't think the de-escalation in McKenzie's murder is that much of a hurdle. There are several factors that might have contributed to her mostly superficial mutilations. For one, we don't know the physical or mental state of the killer at the time, and whether that status is linked to the eight month gap between murders. You've also provided another adequate explanation that the killer was poorly-equipped for the job. Maybe McKenzie's murder was done on the spur of the moment and he overestimated the weapon he had on him. Also, Mary Kelly seems to have been one of the few prostitutes in the area who had her own lodgings, so the killer was back to working in uncontrolled conditions.

I'm not wholly convinced that the Thames Torso & Whitechapel killings were the work of the same killer. It does seem unusual for a killer who operated behind closed doors to suddenly take to ripping women up out in the open for a short time, and there was a long period when both series didn't overlap. However, there's also two periods in 1888 and 1889 where they do. And that can't be dismissed so casually. I don't know of any two serial killings overlapping like this in the same geographical area, both of which involving similar signature elements & methodology (the removal of the abdominal walls, emptying of viscera and passive exhibitionism). Not to mention, the added significance of the final Torso murder being dumped right in Ripperland.