Mary Jane was murdered between 09.00 and 10.30 am

[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.

[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

[mpriestnall]

" Mary Jane was murdered between 09.00 and 10.30 am"

Someone was murdered around 4 am. But it wasn't Kelly.

IMHO.

[Aethelwulf]

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.

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.

[Lewis C]

Fair enough. but look at it from the other side.
How popular is Bury as a suspect?, he's hardly at the top of the list.
If the majority of people had Bury as their suspect you might have a case, but as it sits his candidacy is at best a minority view. Even Lech, or Maybrick may be more popular than Bury (just as guess).

What we do know is a majority of people do not take Bury to be their preferred suspect, so perhaps it's your own minority view that needs to be reassessed?

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.

[Wickerman]

Hi Abby, this is what I was talking about, the other extreme compared to totally OTT with a suspect - dismissing everything.

Fair enough. but look at it from the other side.
How popular is Bury as a suspect?, he's hardly at the top of the list.
If the majority of people had Bury as their suspect you might have a case, but as it sits his candidacy is at best a minority view. Even Lech, or Maybrick may be more popular than Bury (just as guess).

What we do know is a majority of people do not take Bury to be their preferred suspect, so perhaps it's your own minority view that needs to be reassessed?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby, this is what I was talking about, the other extreme compared to totally OTT with a suspect - dismissing everything.

yes and of course my last sentence meant to say.." ..hes easily one of the least weak suspects, if not THE least weak suspect."

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael

On Liz Stride, I'll explain why I generally count her as a victim of the Whitechapel murderer (WM). I believe there are more than five victims of the WM and do think there was learning from his early victims that lead to the process he used across the canonical 5. But that's a conversation for another day. For now, I'll stick with the C5 and Liz Stride.

In fact I split the C5 into two groups - those murders where the killer was interrupted and those where he wasn't. I think Nicholls and Stride were both examples of the murderer being interrupted soon after the murder and hence the victims suffered little if any mutilations. Then Chapmen, Eddowes and Kelly are the group where the murderer had time to mutilate the bodies and he did so.

Nicholls and Stride were both killed at sites close to each other and the other murder sites, in the early hours of the morning, both with their throats cut in similar fashion to the other three victims. In particular with Stride, some 15 minutes walk away another murder was committed a little later, - only this time he was not interrupted and he also went onto mutilate the victim. We cannot be sure, of course, but I think on the balance of probabilities, given the above, Stride was more likely a victim of the WM than not.

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.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I have always wondered what happened to the blankets/blanket in the room? Was it listed in the inventory? For MJK to be just in her chemise to me suggests either the room was warm because of the fire or she had a decent blanket.

Aye, blanket/s were in the room, although I can't remember if they were recorded by the police or reported by the press.

[etenguy]

Ive seen all this serial killer philosophizing about how some killers change their spots so they can use that as a vehicle to add suspects or victims to the proposed Ripper tally that are not obviously of the same ilk. Fine. But those 2 murders show almost identical methods, throat cuts, they were both either inebriated or ill, and the focus on the abdominal mutilation after the throat cuts is very, very, unique. Always wondered why people dont learn anything from those murders, illustrated by the fact they include Liz Stride in the same killers tally despite NONE of those unique characteristics being present. Why? Because it was during that same Fall and in the same neighbourhood?

Hi Michael

On Liz Stride, I'll explain why I generally count her as a victim of the Whitechapel murderer (WM). I believe there are more than five victims of the WM and do think there was learning from his early victims that lead to the process he used across the canonical 5. But that's a conversation for another day. For now, I'll stick with the C5 and Liz Stride.

In fact I split the C5 into two groups - those murders where the killer was interrupted and those where he wasn't. I think Nicholls and Stride were both examples of the murderer being interrupted soon after the murder and hence the victims suffered little if any mutilations. Then Chapmen, Eddowes and Kelly are the group where the murderer had time to mutilate the bodies and he did so.

Nicholls and Stride were both killed at sites close to each other and the other murder sites, in the early hours of the morning, both with their throats cut in similar fashion to the other three victims. In particular with Stride, some 15 minutes walk away another murder was committed a little later, - only this time he was not interrupted and he also went onto mutilate the victim. We cannot be sure, of course, but I think on the balance of probabilities, given the above, Stride was more likely a victim of the WM than not.

[Michael W Richards]

I would think that anyone putting forth any name as a likely suspect candidate needs to show that the person had the particular deviant aspects in his crimes like abdominal mutilation and organ removal suggests. Its probably a reason why even most of the contemporary investigators couldnt bring themselves to add Martha Tabram to the presumed Canonical kill list. The crime lacked the specificity that is obvious there with Polly and then carried on with Annie. Within 2 weeks of each other. The facts relating to those murders, and in particular Annie murder can offer some real insight into that killers true motivations, if people would use what can be learned in those 2 murders they might not be as anxious to suggest anyone whose crimes do not have those very specific elements.

Ive seen all this serial killer philosophizing about how some killers change their spots so they can use that as a vehicle to add suspects or victims to the proposed Ripper tally that are not obviously of the same ilk. Fine. But those 2 murders show almost identical methods, throat cuts, they were both either inebriated or ill, and the focus on the abdominal mutilation after the throat cuts is very, very, unique. Always wondered why people dont learn anything from those murders, illustrated by the fact they include Liz Stride in the same killers tally despite NONE of those unique characteristics being present. Why? Because it was during that same Fall and in the same neighbourhood?

[Michael W Richards]

I have always wondered what happened to the blankets/blanket in the room? Was it listed in the inventory? For MJK to be just in her chemise to me suggests either the room was warm because of the fire or she had a decent blanket.

It could be that she was very drunk when she got home, something which can nullify the affects of cold to some degree. There is also some bedding wedged between the bed and the partition wall.

[Aethelwulf]

why not? he was a known killer of a woman ..via knife no less, a contemp police person of interest, lived in the area, had a history of violence toward females, known association with prostitutes , his departures coincides with the end of murders of the c5, and then theres the similar post mortem mutilation and all the peripheral weird stuff like writing on his home in dundee.
all things considered, hes easily one of the least suspects, if not THE least suspect.

Hi Abby, this is what I was talking about, the other extreme compared to totally OTT with a suspect - dismissing everything.

[Abby Normal]

I've never understood that conclusion.

why not? he was a known killer of a woman ..via knife no less, a contemp police person of interest, lived in the area, had a history of violence toward females, known association with prostitutes , his departures coincides with the end of murders of the c5, and then theres the similar post mortem mutilation and all the peripheral weird stuff like writing on his home in dundee.
all things considered, hes easily one of the least suspects, if not THE least suspect.

[Aethelwulf]

I went through the case from beginning to end, all what he did to his wife and we all debated the mutilations, I came to the conclusion it's a stretch to see this man responsible for the Whitechapel Murders.

I think it is worth considering the police response to the murder of Ellen Bury. It is one thing sat here 130 plus years later saying it's such an obvious non starter and you've gone through the case, but if it was such an obvious copycat killing, why did the police set a side 12 detectives to investiagte the case, spending months looking into him, tracing as many known addresses as possible, trying to find out if he was at home on the nights in question, sending two detectives to hear what he would say at his execution. I would also point out that medical report of templeman and stalker was signed off on 11th Feb 89 - Bury was executed on 29th April 89. If the mutilations were irrelevant and clearly not ripper-like, why spend a further two and a half months investigating Bury. We know that in the seemingly unrelated case of John Gill, Dr Phillips went to Bradford to examine the body. Is it realistic to think a copy of the medical report on Ellen Bury wasn't seen by any of the medical men in London and yet spend all that time looking into Bury. In fact I would have thought that would have been a first course of action.

I think the most logical course is to take away opinions of the ripper would have done this or that and not done this or that, and see what the medical evidence suggests. It suggests a clear similarity in the way Bury cut open his wife's privates and cut through her back passage area. There are a range of wounds on her abdomen that serve no purpose other than Bury's pleasure in cutting and stabbing. If you do a point by point comparison, the injuries are far more ripper like than say Alice McKenzie, but I would imagine a lot of people who discount Ellen Bury also count McKenzie. It is assumed the ripper was a strangler. How is it Bury hits on what is a near identical manner of strangulation to that used on Rose Mylett when he was living a mile awy from that location? To effect that method Brownfield thought the killer had stood a little to the left and crossed his hands so as the cord make did not make full circle with a gap on the left. Well Bury must have also stood a little to the left and crossed his hands to leave a gap of almost two inches on the left side of the neck. I may not have the great insight of the professional on here but I can see that the combination of near identical method, location, Bury's association with prostitues and his all round character put him bang in the firing line for that murder.

Why do not of the top offcials mention Bury? Is it possible for an entire police force to believe the wrong thing while a tiny minority have the right answer? Of course we know that is possible because it has happened in the past. Some detectives at SY clearly thought Bury was the ripper.