Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[GBinOz]

I never exclude that possibility, so please get me 'out of the dark', Mark. Tell me what I've overlooked, because I fail to see it.

Hi Frank,

I think he is alluding to the fact that you are still debating with Fish, and Fish has been suspended.

Best regards, George

[FrankO]

-- I think you've overlooked something, old bean...

I never exclude that possibility, so please get me 'out of the dark', Mark. Tell me what I've overlooked, because I fail to see it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I'm inclined to pretty much agree with your opinions on these three murders. With regard to McKenzie's attack being half hearted, you have to take into account that Druitt was, by that stage, only a shadow of his former self.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Let’s face it though….a ghost committing on of the murders is probably the only theory that hasn’t been put forward…. yet.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Right now, I'd say Bury is slightly stronger than Levy and Deeming, but it's close enough that it's possible that I'll have a different opinion of that in the future. I think Hyams is the weakest of the four, but still definitely viable.

Hi LC,

I have to admit that I struggle to take Bury seriously as a person of interest. After murdering his wife he went to the police (some days later) and stated that he awoke from a drunken stupor to find his wife dead with a rope around her neck. An obvious suicide, according to Bury. He then stated that he mutilated her and stuffed her in a box because he was afraid he might be suspected of being JtR....Huh...WHAT??????.

I find it difficult to believe that it was anyone but Bury that was responsible for the chalk graffiti messages. A symptom of his delusions of grandeur, and an attempt to further intimidate his wife. His alleged conversation with his hangman adds to the evidence that he was an attention seeker craving to be thought of as a special person of note.

Description of Bury from the Dundee Courier 12 Feb. 1889:

"In his own clothes he was a fairly decent looking man but in prison garb . . . he strikes one as being weak minded. Bury is of fresh complexion, his hair is dark brown, his moustache and whiskers being a shade lighter. He has a somewhat timid and excitable appearance. Viewed from the side he presents features somewhat of the Jewish or Semite type. He has dark but not heavy eyebrows and his eyes are keen and sharp. His nose is long and prominent, his cheeks thin, and his beard sparse and straggling . . . he appeared a diminutive and insignificant creature."

I tend to agree with the above, and regard Bury as a person of limited intellect, a drunken bully who craved to be thought of as someone special, who murdered his wife in a drunken rage and lacked the intellect to be JtR.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I’ve hovered for years on these. I have Tabram as a possible (although I’d lean toward ‘not.’) I have Stride as a possible ( shaded to the more to the probable) And I have Mackenzie as a possible (shaded more strongly toward a ‘not,’ because injuries seem a little ‘half-hearted’ after Kelly) I’ve always thought that it’s possible that she was killed by someone that she knew and who could be linked to her so he added some ‘ripper-like’ cuts to try and make it appear like a ripper murder (increasing his chances of being exonerated if he had alibi’s for the other murders)

Basically though…I don’t know and could be wrong about all three,

Hi Herlock,

I'm inclined to pretty much agree with your opinions on these three murders. With regard to McKenzie's attack being half hearted, you have to take into account that Druitt was, by that stage, only a shadow of his former self.

Cheers, George

[Lewis C]

Hi RD,

I agree with your thinking on this matter. If McKenzie had been murdered on the same night as Chapman, it may well have been postulated that Jack was unsatisfied after being interrupted and went of to locate and murder Chapman as a result. Stride had her throat cut, and McKenzie was stabbed in the throat (as was Tabram), but this difference may have revolved around the victim's reaction, or lack there of, to the sudden threat. I wonder about the logic of including Stride as a JtR victim, but excluding McKenzie. As you say, it seems to be a matter of timing.

Keep up the good work.

Cheers, George

I mostly agree with this, but I think that timing is a relevant consideration. I think Stride was a Ripper murder and I'm 50/50 on McKenzie, and a big part of why I think Stride was a Ripper murder is that is seems unlikely that her murder and that have Eddowes would have occurred an hour apart within easy walking distance of each other, but were committed by 2 different people. So yes, if McKenzie had been killed one hour before Chapman was, I would absolutely think that she was Ripper murder.

[Lewis C]

Stronger suspects than Bury too, dare I say.

Hi George,

Right now, I'd say Bury is slightly stronger than Levy and Deeming, but it's close enough that it's possible that I'll have a different opinion of that in the future. I think Hyams is the weakest of the four, but still definitely viable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I put Tabram and Stride as probable victims, with Mackenzie as a possible. If Mackenzie was a Ripper victim, the lesser mutilation could be due to failing health, the thrill might be gone, or perhaps both.

I’ve hovered for years on these. I have Tabram as a possible (although I’d lean toward ‘not.’) I have Stride as a possible ( shaded to the more to the probable) And I have Mackenzie as a possible (shaded more strongly toward a ‘not,’ because injuries seem a little ‘half-hearted’ after Kelly) I’ve always thought that it’s possible that she was killed by someone that she knew and who could be linked to her so he added some ‘ripper-like’ cuts to try and make it appear like a ripper murder (increasing his chances of being exonerated if he had alibi’s for the other murders)

Basically though…I don’t know and could be wrong about all three,

[Mark J D]

I forgot to ask you about this one, Christer....

-- I think you've overlooked something, old bean...

M.

[Elamarna]

I put Tabram and Stride as probable victims, with Mackenzie as a possible. If Mackenzie was a Ripper victim, the lesser mutilation could be due to failing health, the thrill might be gone, or perhaps both.

Or a possible lack of confidence, having not killed for over 6 months. This would be significant if the killer was not accustomed to cutting flesh in his day to day life.

Also it's worth considering that there is a real possibility that while Alice was being killed, two police officers were standing at the other end of the street, out of sight, but probably within hearing. That may have had a serious effect on the killer.

Steve

[Fiver]

I tend not to John but in the past I’ve been accused of holding this position purely to keep Druitt ‘in the game,’ so I tend to avoid Mackenzie discussion. I couldn’t discount her for anything like a certainty though. She might have been a ripper victim which would emilinate Druitt of course. I’m undecided on Tabram and Stride too.

I put Tabram and Stride as probable victims, with Mackenzie as a possible. If Mackenzie was a Ripper victim, the lesser mutilation could be due to failing health, the thrill might be gone, or perhaps both.

[New Ford Shunt]

Some excellent points as always Herlock and I appreciate and respect your views.

Regarding Jackson; she did spend time in Whitechapel.

When she and John (Jack) Faircloth left Ipswich, they headed directly for Whitechapel, rather than head to the Chelsea area.

The idea that Jackson had no connection to Whitechapel is not accurate.

The question is; why choose Whitechapel?

Faircloth had finished his contractual work in Ipswich, in which they had stayed for around 4 months. This is also the location where Jackson conceived.

They then returned to London, but went to Whitechapel, where they stayed for at least few days before moving to Millwall in the docklands, just yards from the Thames.

I would anticipate that one of the reasons for going from Ipswich to Whitechapel, may have been to try and seek an abortion.

While I don't believe that Jackson was killed during a botched abortion, I do believe that her pregnancy was her driving force.


RD

RD, whilst I appreciate your enthusiasm, your speculation regarding 'why Whitechapel' is a leap too far. John Faircloth had secured 4 months work at E R & F Turners Flour Mill in Ipswich. This lasted from the start of December 1888 to the end of March 1889. Turners also had a premises at 82 Mark Lane near Fenchurch Street Station. Jackson and Faircloth spent 5 days in a lodging house in Whitechapel, off the top of my head I don't think the location or name was any more specific than that. It is therefore likely that the reason for 'why Whitechapel' is Faircloth was hoping to obtain work from his employers there. Faircloth remember, went where the work took him. After 5 days they moved to a Mrs Payne's in Millwall.

On the subject of Jackson falling pregnant in Ipswich, this is open for debate. Elizabeth herself stated to her mother that she was due in early September. If we are to believe this, it would roughly tally with her having met Faircloth at the end of Nov/start of Dec. The medical men however, or rather the newspaper reports of what the medical men said (which we should always be cautious of) range from them estimating she was six months pregnant to eight months pregnant when she died. This would put her conceiving at any point between the start of October 1888 and the start of December 1888. Faircloth may well have been the father or equally it was someone else, we simply don't know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I find it unlikely Mackenzie was a Ripper victim.

I tend not to John but in the past I’ve been accused of holding this position purely to keep Druitt ‘in the game,’ so I tend to avoid Mackenzie discussion. I couldn’t discount her for anything like a certainty though. She might have been a ripper victim which would emilinate Druitt of course. I’m undecided on Tabram and Stride too.

[Elamarna]

Some excellent points as always Herlock and I appreciate and respect your views.

Regarding Jackson; she did spend time in Whitechapel.

When she and John (Jack) Faircloth left Ipswich, they headed directly for Whitechapel, rather than head to the Chelsea area.

The idea that Jackson had no connection to Whitechapel is not accurate.

The question is; why choose Whitechapel?

Faircloth had finished his contractual work in Ipswich, in which they had stayed for around 4 months. This is also the location where Jackson conceived.

They then returned to London, but went to Whitechapel, where they stayed for at least few days before moving to Millwall in the docklands, just yards from the Thames.

I would anticipate that one of the reasons for going from Ipswich to Whitechapel, may have been to try and seek an abortion.

While I don't believe that Jackson was killed during a botched abortion, I do believe that her pregnancy was her driving force.


RD

Do you have any actual evidence to support that last point RD, or is it simply opinion.

In a previous post #242 you made a few observations let's call them, I would like to comment on RD.

"If we include 1873 as his first kill, and the include 1902 as his last, that's nearly 30 years.

I have still to see any real evidence to link the 1873 attack to the 1902 attack, and plenty to argue they are not linked, the bodies are treated very differently.

I also still fail to see a solid link between the 73 case and the 1880s cases, but that's a different matter.
It is very possible, if not probable, that some of the mid 80s cases are related to each other, but it's certainly not certain all are.

The Ripper was likely to have been around 36 when he killed 5 unfortunates in an unbroken series in 1888.

36?

Sorry, but given we don't know, despite what many claim, who the Ripper was, how can we set such a pricise age?
If we rely on the witness descriptions, and I for one would not as regards age, we could draw up a range or 5- 10 years, but that is about it.
How can we set an exact age, unless we have a suspect in mind? And if we do, then any speculation is subject to confirmaction bias.

And therefore aged around 21 when he made his first kill in 1873.

That would then make him around 50 when he committed his last Torso kill in 1902.

His birth year between 1851 - 1853

That's a 30 year killing

Yes that follows if we accept the following:

1. All the Torsos from 1873-1902 are committed by the same person/persons.
I see no evidence to support this I am afraid, just alot of assumptions.

2. That the Whitechapel murders are committed by the same person who perpetrated ALL the torso cases.

The above for me are real issues.
While it may be possible to argue for the 80s Torsos to be linked to the Whitechapel murders, due to the, I believe flawed, argument that two serial killers would be unlikely to be working in London at the same time; attempting to link All the torso cases to one person/persons is unsupported speculation in my view.
( I won't even start to debate if all the 80s Torsos were actually murder or by the same person, and thus not a serial killer).

3. That the Ripper was 36 in 1888, this is simply picking a number out of thin air RD.

I don't mean to sound dismissive my friend, I really do like the degree of enthusiasm (and research) you show on every subject, but surely we should start from:

1. Are all the torso cases linked togeather, and I see no evidence in this thread that they are.

2. Are any of the Torsos linked to the Whitechapel murders, and again, while there is plenty of debate, I see no conclusive, or even non conclusive evidence that they are, simply speculation.

Asigning an exact age to the Ripper will, I am sorry, lead to false conclusions.


Steve

[FrankO]

When I write canonical victims, I mean the four victims of 1887-89, Rainham, Whitehall, Jackson and Pinchin. One out of four was found in the East End, and that makes for 25 per cent.

I forgot to ask you about this one, Christer. Up to the quote above, you always included the 1873-84 cases? I thought you’d especially discovered a strong link between Kelly and the 1873 victim that sort of sealed the deal for you. So, why in this instance only speak of 1887-89? Is that because the percentages look better when doing so? I’m convinced that can’t be your answer, so, what’s your reasoning behind that?