Mary Jane was murdered between 09.00 and 10.30 am

[Elamarna]

I see your rationale and I dont pretend to know better than anyone else who really should be included, but I will make a few remarks. On the issue of interruptions, I agree with you on Polly. The wounds on her abdomen are very similar to the type of wounds that Annie had, the obvious difference being that the actions taken in Annies case went far beyond those of Pollys. I personally attribute that to his change in venue the second time out. On the street with Polly didnt work out to fufilment, but a backyard with Annie certainly did. Also the double throat cuts, the abdominal focus after the throat cuts are things that are present in both. Both were also less than 100% sharp, Polly was drunk, Annie was ill. I believe that also factored into his victim "choices". Nobody that might give him too much trouble physically.

So I agree, there is some support for an interruption with Polly in the existing evidence. Now with Liz, the reason anyone suggests an interruption there is not because the evidence suggests it....not because anyone saw anyone fleeing the scene, not because there is evidence that abdominal mutilations would be the next step taken....there is no evidence of any of that. The reason for suggesting Liz's killer was interrupted? Because the lack of any real Ripper evidence there, the geographical component, and the victim profile...women who, at some point, solicited. Then Kate is cited because her murder does resemble the first 2, and the argument is that it appears he was out killing on that night. But he NEVER killed anyone within city limits, and ONLY Liz is devoid of the stronger and oft repeated Ripper type of injuries. And Liz had been getting steady work, as recently as earlier that day...she did not have a compelling need to solicit, and certainly not with flowers and cachous as accoutrements. And she was sober and healthy.

I would argue that there is a fair degree of reasoning behind the Stride Murder being interrupted.
Such of course depends of course on how one judges ONE bit of evidence.

That is the attack witnessed by Schwartz.
He we have a man witnessed attacking a woman. By 2 separate individuals, one of those may have got a good enough view to identify the attacker.

My scenero is very clear, BS man is an individual who was not seen with Stride earlier( some argue he was, but I don't, and for the sake of argument I suggest he was new to the scene).

For reasons we do not know, he decides to attack the woman, who it seems very probably was Stide.
At this pricise momment, the attacker is out of rational control, driven by anger? hate? Or some other inner feeling.
At this point nothing matter but the urge to attack.
However, he becomes aware of Schwartz only feet away, and then very possibly aware of Pipeman( I assume they are not working together).
At this point a degree of reason comes back to BS man. He attempt to scare Schwartz off, then kills Stride.
He then flees, before committing any mutilations.
He is interrupted by Schwartz.

Now be he JTR or not, if we accept Schwartz did see an attack, and BS man responded as claimed by Schwartz, then BS man is clearly interrupted.

The question for me is why did the police link the two murders that night?
As I previously suggested, the possibility is that the same man was seen attacking Stride, and sometime later, he was seen close to Mitre Square.

Lots of speculation I accept, but the central points are I think clear.

BS man, was interrupted in his attack by the presence of Schwartz.

I strongly suspect however, we will not agree.

Steve

[Michael W Richards]

Thats correct Steve, we disagree . I dont believe there was any BSM on the street with Liz, I think the last man she was with while on the street is the man with the parcel at 12:35, then she goes into the passageway. Her killer is in there or comes from the club's side door. Thats my take anyway.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

When you say popular, do you mean with the general public? If so, I would argue how popular a suspect is has little to do with how strong a suspect is. I would say that the 6 most popular suspects are Kosminski, Lech, James Maybrick, Sickert, Tumblety, and Holmes, and the main reason that Kos is so popular is because of the high profile but highly flawed DNA test.

Actually no, it's my view that Joe Public knows very little about these murders. We are not Joe Public, 'we' know more than the average person about these murders, so when I say popular I mean among students of the case, 'us', those of us who have taken the time to learn & research the murders.

[Wickerman]

You're right LC popularity from any audience is an absurd argument. Most people on here have a suspect as well so it's not surprising on that level either. The others are the dismiss everything brigade.

Wulf, you wrote a summary on Bury some years back - I looked it up again, clearly it was written by a fan of Bury, not an impartial researcher. Do you remember the first point you made in support of Bury as the Ripper?
"He was there", really?
Any researcher worth their salt should have advised you that "being there" is a basic requirement to even make the list, regardless of anything else.
"Being there" is not evidence in support of him being the Ripper, thousands of people lived in the vicinity of the crimes, they are not all suspects.
Your task as a supporter of Bury is to find evidence that singles Bury out from everyone else who lived in the area. Reduce the "thousands" down to "one".

If there's one detail throughout the Whitechapel murders it's the cutting of the throat - Bury didn't cut Ellen's throat, and he was not disturbed, he had time to mutilate the lower abdomen.
Bury had the time to admit he was the Ripper if he chose to, and he didn't.

I know this is a Kelly thread, so I'll leave it at that. I'm only trying to show that Bury, just like most other suspects is more of a willful creation of theorists than a genuine Ripper suspect.
He was a murderer, he used a knife, he also used a ligature - not unique for the time either. It isn't a matter of dismissing 'everything', it's more a matter of listing the real similarities, so few that they are.

[Aethelwulf]

Wulf, you wrote a summary on Bury some years back - I looked it up again, clearly it was written by a fan of Bury, not an impartial researcher. Do you remember the first point you made in support of Bury as the Ripper?
"He was there", really?
Any researcher worth their salt should have advised you that "being there" is a basic requirement to even make the list, regardless of anything else.
"Being there" is not evidence in support of him being the Ripper, thousands of people lived in the vicinity of the crimes, they are not all suspects.
Your task as a supporter of Bury is to find evidence that singles Bury out from everyone else who lived in the area. Reduce the "thousands" down to "one".

If there's one detail throughout the Whitechapel murders it's the cutting of the throat - Bury didn't cut Ellen's throat, and he was not disturbed, he had time to mutilate the lower abdomen.
Bury had the time to admit he was the Ripper if he chose to, and he didn't.

I know this is a Kelly thread, so I'll leave it at that. I'm only trying to show that Bury, just like most other suspects is more of a willful creation of theorists than a genuine Ripper suspect.
He was a murderer, he used a knife, he also used a ligature - not unique for the time either. It isn't a matter of dismissing 'everything', it's more a matter of listing the real similarities, so few that they are.

To be fair that was wht two years ago and I'll admit I hadn't read as much or know as much back then, and it was a first post on the site and yes I did get a bit carried away, so picking on that is a bit childish. I'm sure i could go raking and find an example of you making a tit of yourself.

I recall we've disagreed before and we came to conclusion that you don't rate my opinion and I don't rate yours.

This shows just how caught up in your own wonderful objectivity you are:

I'm only trying to show that Bury, just like most other suspects is more of a willful creation of theorists than a genuine Ripper suspect.

The people who think Bury is a terribel suspect, I 'd be interested as to what makes a good suspect. If Bury meets the bar for a wilful creation, what does a good suspect look like?

[Elamarna]

Hi Jon,

When you say popular, do you mean with the general public? If so, I would argue how popular a suspect is has little to do with how strong a suspect is. I would say that the 6 most popular suspects are Kosminski, Lech, James Maybrick, Sickert, Tumblety, and Holmes, and the main reason that Kos is so popular is because of the high profile but highly flawed DNA test.

I suggest that amoungst those who have studied the case, Kosminski is highly regarded despite the DNA claim.

In the podcast section there is a recording with professor Turi King.
If you listen to it, you will find that Kosminski person after Kosminski person rejected the DNA outright.

So why is Kosminski popular?

Partly due to the work of Martin Fido, although flawed his 1987 book is still held in high regard, and quoted by many.
Partly due to the wonderful works by Rob House and John Malcolm.

However, I suggest the main reason is that he is named by three senior officers.

The point of course is Anderson doesn't give a name at all, with Macnaughten there is only a surname, in his very, very odd memo. And then Swanson who again gives only a surname.
We are left to ponder who that is.

With the publication of Swanson by Adam Wood, I think more people now realise that Swanson probably knew more about the murders at the time than anyone else, and certainly so since.

Steve

[Wickerman]

Does anyone seriously believe Jack the Ripper was nothing but a kid of 23 years old?

[Aethelwulf]

If there's one detail throughout the Whitechapel murders it's the cutting of the throat - Bury didn't cut Ellen's throat, and he was not disturbed, he had time to mutilate the lower abdomen.
Bury had the time to admit he was the Ripper if he chose to, and he didn't.

People dream up all sorts of excuses for including McKenzie. In Bury's case there are some different circumstances. His wife wasn't a stranger and he clealry couldn't just walk away without being the one only suspect. I think the paper on signatures states that elements can be diluted or entirely missing depending on circumstances. Don't tell me you know better than those authors I suspect.

If Bury was a copycat he did a crap job on one hand, as he didn't do the one thing the ripper was known for; on the other hand he did a very good job. He managed to make it sound exactly like the cries of murder heard at Millers Court to a witness at pretty much the same time, he did a more ripper like job than the person that killed McKenzie, he even thought to burn some clothing. He even had his very own cheeky school boys on hand to do a couple of chalk messages with a stupid spelling mistake and drop the definite article that surely everyone knew was used.

He was a murderer, he used a knife, he also used a ligature - not unique for the time either. It isn't a matter of dismissing 'everything', it's more a matter of listing the real similarities, so few that they are.

Yes but the similarities in the most perverse injuries are so similar it looks sus. I have seen you post several times that you think Mylett was a ripper victim. Does it not interest you in the slightest bit that Bury who was living a mile away from poplar at the time did something so similar? It isn't just a case of using a ligature, it is using it in the exact same way to leave that same small gap in the circle on the left side of the neck by crossing his hands. If i were in fact a cold case investiagtor I would be looking for people that used simialr methods and were violent, used prostitues, fit the profile and were in the area.

Your argument falls totally flat as I said before because if it was such a stupid and obvious hoax, there is no way Scotland Yard would have spent all that time on it and being reduced to trying to see what his final words would be. Undoubtedly someone medical saw the templeman and stalker report and gave the green light as that report was two and a half months before his execution

I'll leave you to your silo of nothingness Jon

[S.Brett]

Does anyone seriously believe Jack the Ripper was nothing but a kid of 23 years old?

Hi Jon!

I must confess, as a "Kozminskiite", I have my doubts .

I prefer an age between 28-35. But was Aaron Kozminski the "Kosminski" mentioned by some officers? It´s hard to believe he wasn´t.

Steven Keogh, in his book, says the category 27 to 39 is more likely but 22 to 26 & 40 to 45 is also possible.

There are some reports, Sunday Chronicle 1905 for example, make us, as "Kozminskiites", perplex. I take them very seriously. But it could be that the reports prefer to Sagars and/ or Cox´suspect(s). If this suspect was "Kosminski" then, so I think, we might have a problem...

Karsten.

[Scott Nelson]

I'd suggest "Kosminski" was possibly "Cohen." And Cohen was likely uncommunicative enough to make his stated age of 23 only a guess. On his death certificate (completed January 1890, 3 months after his death), he's listed with the same age as he was in December 1888 on his entry into the Whitechapel Union workhouse.

[Scott Nelson]

Does anyone seriously believe Jack the Ripper was nothing but a kid of 23 years old?

Could he have hated older women for some reason?

[S.Brett]

I'd suggest "Kosminski" was possibly "Cohen." And Cohen was likely uncommunicative enough to make his stated age of 23 only a guess. On his death certificate (completed January 1890, 3 months after his death), he's listed with the same age as he was in December 1888 on his entry into the Whitechapel Union workhouse.

Hi Scott!

Sometimes I wonder if this "German" may have been "David Cohen".

Times (London), 15 November 1888:

"One arrest caused more than usual excitement. A man stared into the face of a woman in the WHITECHAPEL-ROAD, and she at once screamed out that he was "Jack the Ripper." The man was immediately surrounded by an excited and threatening crowd, from which he was rescued with some difficulty by the police. He was taken under a strong escort to the Commercial-street Police station, followed by an enormous mob of men and women, shouting and screaming at him in the most extraordinary manner. At the police-station the man proved to be a German, unable to speak a word of English. He explained through an interpreter that he arrived in London from Germany on Tuesday, and was to leave for America to-day, and confirmation of this statement having been obtained he was set at liberty"

Whitechapel Road/ Gertrude Smith (Whitechapel Road)/ Aaron Davis Cohen/N.Cohen you know...

Do you know this?

Gertrude Smet, 55 Whitechapel Road, Old Bailey records:

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t18870228-326&div=t18870228-326&terms=Whitechapel#highlight

In fact she was Gertrude Smith, 255 Whitechapel Road:

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/persons-of-interest-or-actual-suspects/david-cohen/7869-gertrude-smith

Best regards, Karsten.

[Abby Normal]

Wulf, you wrote a summary on Bury some years back - I looked it up again, clearly it was written by a fan of Bury, not an impartial researcher. Do you remember the first point you made in support of Bury as the Ripper?
"He was there", really?
Any researcher worth their salt should have advised you that "being there" is a basic requirement to even make the list, regardless of anything else.
"Being there" is not evidence in support of him being the Ripper, thousands of people lived in the vicinity of the crimes, they are not all suspects.
Your task as a supporter of Bury is to find evidence that singles Bury out from everyone else who lived in the area. Reduce the "thousands" down to "one".

If there's one detail throughout the Whitechapel murders it's the cutting of the throat - Bury didn't cut Ellen's throat, and he was not disturbed, he had time to mutilate the lower abdomen.
Bury had the time to admit he was the Ripper if he chose to, and he didn't.

I know this is a Kelly thread, so I'll leave it at that. I'm only trying to show that Bury, just like most other suspects is more of a willful creation of theorists than a genuine Ripper suspect.
He was a murderer, he used a knife, he also used a ligature - not unique for the time either. It isn't a matter of dismissing 'everything', it's more a matter of listing the real similarities, so few that they are.

wow wick. really surprised by this post of yours. Its probably the stupidest thing Ive ever seen you write.

"being there" is the basic criteria in winnowing out useless suspects. If you cant even place a suspect in england you dont even have a suspect at all. the closer to whitechapel and the east end the better. Bury was in the area. he passes the first hurdle.

Bury, just like most other suspects is more of a willful creation of theorists than a genuine Ripper suspect

.

youve got to be kidding me with this nonsensical statement. Bury was an actual SUSPECT by police at the time.

it's more a matter of listing the real similarities,

oh like what? post mortem mutilation to the abdoman of a woman via knife? lol. Id say thats a real similarity. no other ripper suspect comes close in that regard.

"any research worth his salt". This is a real low blow post wick, especially coming from someone whos favored suspect is a well dressed man, bethnal green botherer, closet druitist etc.

you really owe wulf an apology.

[Abby Normal]

To be fair that was wht two years ago and I'll admit I hadn't read as much or know as much back then, and it was a first post on the site and yes I did get a bit carried away, so picking on that is a bit childish. I'm sure i could go raking and find an example of you making a tit of yourself.

I recall we've disagreed before and we came to conclusion that you don't rate my opinion and I don't rate yours.

This shows just how caught up in your own wonderful objectivity you are:

I'm only trying to show that Bury, just like most other suspects is more of a willful creation of theorists than a genuine Ripper suspect.

The people who think Bury is a terribel suspect, I 'd be interested as to what makes a good suspect. If Bury meets the bar for a wilful creation, what does a good suspect look like?

you didnt make a tit of yourself. and theres nothing wrong with that post. you have nothing to be ashamed of. not sure whats gotten into wick.

[Aethelwulf]

you didnt make a tit of yourself. and theres nothing wrong with that post. you have nothing to be ashamed of. not sure whats gotten into wick.

Thanks abby. You're one of the few people on here who actaully know what you're talking about. We may disagree on who the ripper was (I know you count McKenzie) but you give a good account of stuff.

I've decided I've had more than enough and waste too much of time on here when I should be doing actual proper stuff so I'm departing when admin get around to it.

I'll just say, it was in all probability Bury.

In terms of theorising, Wick et al couldn't hit a cow's arse with banjo.

Laters