Who was killed by Jack the Ripper?

[Fiver]

That's because there isn't enough evidence to eliminate very many suspects, so the old suspects remain, but as time goes on, people find new ones to add.

There's a thread on the other forum about this.

Suspects that can definitely be eliminated include:

* Robert Anderson - not in England at the time of some of the murders.

* Thomas Neill Cream - in prison in Illinois.

* Henry Hanslope - in the workhouse at the time of the first four of the C5 murders.

* Jacob Isenschmid - confined to a hospital during the Double Event.

* Michael Ostrog - in prison in France.

* John Pizer - was talking to a police constable at the time of the Nichols murder.

* Oswald Puckridge - investigated by the police, "he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt".

* James Thomas Sadler - at sea at the time of the first four of the C5 murders.

* Walter Sickert - not in England at the time of some of the murders.

* Robert Donston Stephenson - confined to a hospital during the murders.

* Vincent Van Gogh - in France.

* Prince Albert Victor - not in London at the time of any of the murders.

Many others are wildly unlikely, but not 100% eliminated.

[Lewis C]

There's a thread on the other forum about this.

Suspects that can definitely be eliminated include:

* Robert Anderson - not in England at the time of some of the murders.

* Thomas Neill Cream - in prison in Illinois.

* Henry Hanslope - in the workhouse at the time of the first four of the C5 murders.

* Jacob Isenschmid - confined to a hospital during the Double Event.

* Michael Ostrog - in prison in France.

* John Pizer - was talking to a police constable at the time of the Nichols murder.

* Oswald Puckridge - investigated by the police, "he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt".

* James Thomas Sadler - at sea at the time of the first four of the C5 murders.

* Walter Sickert - not in England at the time of some of the murders.

* Robert Donston Stephenson - confined to a hospital during the murders.

* Vincent Van Gogh - in France.

* Prince Albert Victor - not in London at the time of any of the murders.

Many others are wildly unlikely, but not 100% eliminated.

As a percentage of the total number of suspects, that's not very many, and I believe some were eliminated at the time. I'm glad to learn that about Hanslope, but if he can be eliminated on the grounds that he lived in a workhouse, Robert Mann also lived in a workhouse. Is there a reason why one can be eliminated but the other can't be?

Stephenson was in a hospital at the time, but it's my understanding that he had the ability to leave the hospital, and that the hospital was located in Whitechapel. I'll agree that I think it's unlikely that he could have left and returned 4 times without there being any evidence that that ever happened, but I'm not sure he can be 100% eliminated. I'll agree that he's a very weak suspect.

[FISHY1118]

Its never been shown or proven that Walter Sickert was not in England for the murders . He remains a suspect .

[The Rookie Detective]

There's a thread on the other forum about this.

Suspects that can definitely be eliminated include:

* Robert Anderson - not in England at the time of some of the murders.

* Thomas Neill Cream - in prison in Illinois.

* Henry Hanslope - in the workhouse at the time of the first four of the C5 murders.

* Jacob Isenschmid - confined to a hospital during the Double Event.

* Michael Ostrog - in prison in France.

* John Pizer - was talking to a police constable at the time of the Nichols murder.

* Oswald Puckridge - investigated by the police, "he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt".

* James Thomas Sadler - at sea at the time of the first four of the C5 murders.

* Walter Sickert - not in England at the time of some of the murders.

* Robert Donston Stephenson - confined to a hospital during the murders.

* Vincent Van Gogh - in France.

* Prince Albert Victor - not in London at the time of any of the murders.

Many others are wildly unlikely, but not 100% eliminated.

The interesting thing about Hanslope is that while he was indeed listed as being in the workhouse throughout August and September 1888, he also stayed in room 11 in February 1889, directly opposite Kelly's room 13.

The question is; how long was he staying in room 11 prior to him appearing in the records in February 1889 as living at 11 Miller's Court?

He tries to rape his 13 year old daughter, battered his own mother, and threatened to cut his wife's throat.

He also spent time playing detective and had acting experience from his youth.

I have always believed that the unnamed man who came out of Millers Court on the morning of the murder circa 10.30am and then told police he was on his way to get milk/off to the market etc... was actually Hanslope.

He often gave various different job descriptions; from a clerk to a porter.

The man stopped by police stated he was a Porter and that he had come from room 3.

Yet another report states the "room opposite."

But while room 3 is adjacent to room 13, room 11 is directly opposite.

It may therefore be a simple case of the rooms getting mixed up and the man who said he was stopped by police, may have come from room 11 and not 3.

This is supported by the fact that room 3's resident has never been established.
Neither has room 11.

Which possibly indicates it's because they're the same person.

And if that's the case, then it's possible that Hanslope was the man who left the court the morning after the murder.

And judging by his penchant for sexual violence against his own daughter, his brutal violence against his mother, and threats of throat cutting towards his wife.... it makes him someone not to be dismissed so easily.

We know he was there 3 months after Kelly was murdered.
He literally stayed in room 11 opposite the murder site.

But did he go there out of macabre fascination, or was he the Porter?

Were rooms 3 and 11 mixed up?


We must also factor in the idea that Hanslope was a master (so he thought) of disguise and the posing as a detective would to me seem like a perfect ruse to convince an unfortunate to accompany them to a quiet place.

Of course, Hanslope was around 5ft 11 and had fair features, so clearly didn't look Jewish.

But at the same time, could Hutchinson have seen Hanslope?

Was Kelly's laughing a sign of familiarity with Astrakhan man?

Imagine a scenario whereby Kelly has relayed her fears about being a victim of the Ripper.
The man staying across in room 11 then plays detective and tricks Kelly into a false sense of security.

"You'll be alright for what I've told you."


Could Hanslope have been a copycat killer?


I have again wondered how the man who butchered Kelly was confident that he wouldn't be disturbed.

Killing inside her room, and also a woman of around 20 years younger compared to other previous victims, is perhaps suggestive of a different killer.


Just for a moment consider that Hanslope was Kelly's killer.
After he's done, he just walks a few yards back to room 11.
The one place the police would never think to look...the room opposite.
The killer may have never left the court...until he played Porter again the next morning.


There is one particular tantalising clue regarding Hanslope's potential candidacy as the slayer of Kelly...

As a teenager at school, Hanslope (and 2 others) won awards for their chosen stage presentations.

Hanslope was recognised early on for his acting potential.

But what did he choose to study and recite on stage in front of his audience?

He chose the Merchant of Venice.

Specifically the antagonist character, Shylock.


He won an award for performing a Shakespeare monologue in the form of Shylock.

The Jew who will have his "pound of flesh"


Reminiscent of what the killer did to Kelly.



So...

Did the "real" Ripper injure himself on his own knife when cutting Eddowes and then needed some torn apron as a means to try and quickly stop the blood?

Did the killer sever a tenden in his hand/thumb, which then needed time to heal... and the gap between Eddowes and McKenzie being the time he needed to heal?

McKenzie's murder being similar to Nichol's and the killer going back to basics after his rage overtook him with Eddowes?

Could Kelly's murder have been a red herring all along?


I mean, it is very possible that Hanslope was the man who murdered Kelly.

And furthermore, we know that Hanslope appears to have made a full recovery from his February 1889 admission, because his workhouse admissions decrease substantially after Kelly's murder.


Coincidence perhaps.


But still fascinating to consider nonetheless

[Herlock Sholmes]

So in some weird alternative universe the famous painter Walter Sickert (never known to be violent), the Queen’s physician Sir William Gull (never known to be violent) and frail, drug-addicted (known to be violent) poet Francis Thompson are all valid suspects and yet, according to you, a violent murderer and post mortem mutilator who assorted with prostitutes and who was living right next to the murder zone isn’t a suspect. And a disturbed and dangerous knife attacker who worked in Whitechapel and blamed a prostitute for giving him syphilis isn’t.

We’re down the rabbit-hole again

[The Rookie Detective]

Henry Hanslope...


As Shylock from The Merchant of Venice...

Act 1 scene 3
Act 3 scene 1
Act 4 scene 1




Interesting.

[Lewis C]

The interesting thing about Hanslope is that while he was indeed listed as being in the workhouse throughout August and September 1888, he also stayed in room 11 in February 1889, directly opposite Kelly's room 13.

The question is; how long was he staying in room 11 prior to him appearing in the records in February 1889 as living at 11 Miller's Court?

He tries to rape his 13 year old daughter, battered his own mother, and threatened to cut his wife's throat.

He also spent time playing detective and had acting experience from his youth.

I have always believed that the unnamed man who came out of Millers Court on the morning of the murder circa 10.30am and then told police he was on his way to get milk/off to the market etc... was actually Hanslope.

He often gave various different job descriptions; from a clerk to a porter.

The man stopped by police stated he was a Porter and that he had come from room 3.

Yet another report states the "room opposite."

But while room 3 is adjacent to room 13, room 11 is directly opposite.

It may therefore be a simple case of the rooms getting mixed up and the man who said he was stopped by police, may have come from room 11 and not 3.

This is supported by the fact that room 3's resident has never been established.
Neither has room 11.

Which possibly indicates it's because they're the same person.

And if that's the case, then it's possible that Hanslope was the man who left the court the morning after the murder.

And judging by his penchant for sexual violence against his own daughter, his brutal violence against his mother, and threats of throat cutting towards his wife.... it makes him someone not to be dismissed so easily.

We know he was there 3 months after Kelly was murdered.
He literally stayed in room 11 opposite the murder site.

But did he go there out of macabre fascination, or was he the Porter?

Were rooms 3 and 11 mixed up?


We must also factor in the idea that Hanslope was a master (so he thought) of disguise and the posing as a detective would to me seem like a perfect ruse to convince an unfortunate to accompany them to a quiet place.

Of course, Hanslope was around 5ft 11 and had fair features, so clearly didn't look Jewish.

But at the same time, could Hutchinson have seen Hanslope?

Was Kelly's laughing a sign of familiarity with Astrakhan man?

Imagine a scenario whereby Kelly has relayed her fears about being a victim of the Ripper.
The man staying across in room 11 then plays detective and tricks Kelly into a false sense of security.

"You'll be alright for what I've told you."


Could Hanslope have been a copycat killer?


I have again wondered how the man who butchered Kelly was confident that he wouldn't be disturbed.

Killing inside her room, and also a woman of around 20 years younger compared to other previous victims, is perhaps suggestive of a different killer.


Just for a moment consider that Hanslope was Kelly's killer.
After he's done, he just walks a few yards back to room 11.
The one place the police would never think to look...the room opposite.
The killer may have never left the court...until he played Porter again the next morning.


There is one particular tantalising clue regarding Hanslope's potential candidacy as the slayer of Kelly...

As a teenager at school, Hanslope (and 2 others) won awards for their chosen stage presentations.

Hanslope was recognised early on for his acting potential.

But what did he choose to study and recite on stage in front of his audience?

He chose the Merchant of Venice.

Specifically the antagonist character, Shylock.


He won an award for performing a Shakespeare monologue in the form of Shylock.

The Jew who will have his "pound of flesh"


Reminiscent of what the killer did to Kelly.



So...

Did the "real" Ripper injure himself on his own knife when cutting Eddowes and then needed some torn apron as a means to try and quickly stop the blood?

Did the killer sever a tenden in his hand/thumb, which then needed time to heal... and the gap between Eddowes and McKenzie being the time he needed to heal?

McKenzie's murder being similar to Nichol's and the killer going back to basics after his rage overtook him with Eddowes?

Could Kelly's murder have been a red herring all along?


I mean, it is very possible that Hanslope was the man who murdered Kelly.

And furthermore, we know that Hanslope appears to have made a full recovery from his February 1889 admission, because his workhouse admissions decrease substantially after Kelly's murder.


Coincidence perhaps.


But still fascinating to consider nonetheless

Hi RD,

You're arguing here that Hanslope could have killed Kelly, but I think you're conceding that he couldn't have killed any of the other C5 victims, and I think not Tabram either. In my book, if someone has an alibi for the Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes murders, that person isn't Jack the Ripper, even if that person killed Kelly.

[Lewis C]

Its never been shown or proven that Walter Sickert was not in England for the murders . He remains a suspect .

It has been proven that Sickert was in France shortly before and shortly after the Chapman murder, and there's no evidence that he was ever anywhere but in France in the days in between. He might not have an ironclad alibi, but he does come pretty close.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

You're arguing here that Hanslope could have killed Kelly, but I think you're conceding that he couldn't have killed any of the other C5 victims, and I think not Tabram either. In my book, if someone has an alibi for the Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes murders, that person isn't Jack the Ripper, even if that person killed Kelly.

I am suggesting that Hanslope murdered Kelly.

And while it may seem a certainty that Hanslope had an alibi, I would suggest that more data would be required to affirm the document that stated he was in the workhouse during the murders of the first Canonical 4 victims.

If for example, the workhouse system was strict and operated like a prison whereby nobody was allowed to leave and come back for a few hours, then the record shows he was in the workhouse.

However, if there's any chance that Hanslope could have been staying in the workhouse and then coming and going at various times, then I would suggest that he could still be considered as the Ripper.

The latter is very unlikely, but if the workhouse record we have relating to Hanslope being in there, is either incorrect, or doesn't definitively prove he must have been incarcerated in the workhouse for months without being let out, then I think Hanslope may still be an outside bet as the Ripper.

I don't know enough about workhouses to know just how accurate and conclusive their record books are.

Is there anyone who would know whether there could be a way for Hanslope to have been out of the workhouse, even though the record shows he was still in there for months without coming out?


Curious

[Lewis C]

I am suggesting that Hanslope murdered Kelly.

And while it may seem a certainty that Hanslope had an alibi, I would suggest that more data would be required to affirm the document that stated he was in the workhouse during the murders of the first Canonical 4 victims.

If for example, the workhouse system was strict and operated like a prison whereby nobody was allowed to leave and come back for a few hours, then the record shows he was in the workhouse.

However, if there's any chance that Hanslope could have been staying in the workhouse and then coming and going at various times, then I would suggest that he could still be considered as the Ripper.

The latter is very unlikely, but if the workhouse record we have relating to Hanslope being in there, is either incorrect, or doesn't definitively prove he must have been incarcerated in the workhouse for months without being let out, then I think Hanslope may still be an outside bet as the Ripper.

I don't know enough about workhouses to know just how accurate and conclusive their record books are.

Is there anyone who would know whether there could be a way for Hanslope to have been out of the workhouse, even though the record shows he was still in there for months without coming out?


Curious

The other time when I've heard about a suspect in connection to a workhouse was with Robert Mann. The sense I had was that Mann being in a workhouse made him a very weak suspect, but didn't make it impossible for him to have committed the murders. If that's right, I don't see why Hanslope's case would be different from Mann's, but maybe Fiver has some thoughts on that.