Who do you think Jack the Ripper was?

JenniferHJohnstone · Feb 5, 2017

Fiver said:
Jackdaw isn't talking about the idea that the Kelly or Stride murders might not have been by the Ripper, he believes all of the Ripper victims were murdered by a group, what is often referred to as the Royal Conspiracy. Of the various Ripper theories, it's one of the least credible - much of the Royal Conspiracy is provably false, it requires everyone involved to be complete idiots, and it's an admitted hoax.

The other rumored group theory was the Irish theory. Or, that it was motivated by an Irish person.

I don't think it was a group, a single man. But, I could see why the Irish theory attracts attention. It would also explain why the secret ledgers were never published...because even to this day the Irish situation is a sensitive subject.

JenniferHJohnstone · Feb 5, 2017

Peaceful said:
Not the case. In Victorian London people were going to and coming from work at all times in the morning, many of them butchers and the like walking 'round with blood on their person.

A very different age, and walking the streets at 2 in the morning with blood on you wouldn't have batted an eye lid.

Plus, by the time the police were on the scene of the murders, the killer could have easily walked 15 minutes away from the scene.

In actual fact, the killer could very easily have simply stood up from the body and walked down the street at a slow pace, without arousing any suspicion whatsoever.

Exactly. Plus, people during the Victorian era didn't have the same sleep pattern as we do today. It was common for people to be awake during the early hours of the morning:
The myth of the eight-hour sleep - BBC News

Davidius · Feb 5, 2017

Peaceful said:
Not the case. In Victorian London people were going to and coming from work at all times in the morning, many of them butchers and the like walking 'round with blood on their person.

A very different age, and walking the streets at 2 in the morning with blood on you wouldn't have batted an eye lid.

Quite so. Smithfield Market, London's wholesale meat market, operated 24 hours a day in 1888, was home to any number of stockyards, slaughterhouses, butchers and businesses related to meat production. It is about a 25 minute walk to Whitechapel from there.
If we also consider the ubiquity of local butchers, tanners etc in every district of the city, and also consider that many restaurants and food sellers prepared their own meat, we can see that bloodstains on a working mans clothes in the small hours was not uncommon or noteworthy.

JenniferHJohnstone · Feb 5, 2017

Peaceful said:
It wasn't really surrounded by police, though.

A couple of policemen had a beat 'round that square, one of whom walked 'round the inside of the square and the other walked down a passage and back up again.

I think they passed the same spot every 15 minutes, so plenty of time to get away in the dark when a policemen was heard approaching.

In those days you more or less had to be caught red handed, an in the event you heard a policeman turn the corner you still had time to get away in the dark - and these places were more or less pitch black give or take a moon and some sub-standard street lighting.

And, policing in those days was in its infancy. It took about 20 minutes to put a search together after the discovery of the body in Mitre Square. By that time, the murderer was long gone - he could have probably walked 'round the square 5 times and wandered off when he got bored and still have plenty of time to spare.

True. Though, the mutilation of Eddowes was around 5-10 minutes.

It seems as if he evaded a close call from being captured twice that night. Once with Stride, then Eddowes.

He was either very lucky. Or new police patrols well...

JenniferHJohnstone · Feb 5, 2017

notgivenaway said:
A sociopathic doctor, who knew how to get away from the police, and take advantage of the emerging status of forensics.

Maybe some Christian fanatic, given him killing prostitutes, or some politician even who did it for kicks and knew he would get away with it.

This isn't proven, but just my suspicions. Police work then was not as thorough as it is now of course, and back then crime was far easier to get away with.

Interesting theories. A Christian fanatic would perhaps explain the mutilations - a murder spree due to a hatred of prostitutes. For some moral crusade (in the rippers eyes).

Lack of DNA technology, poor street lighting, having to be caught in the act etc...made it difficult for the police to catch the ripper.

JenniferHJohnstone · Feb 5, 2017

martin76 said:
A poor and hang up man with sexual frustrations for decades ...An insignificant little man that no one could ever suspect him... He always killed in Week-ends...at least the "official victims"...

Weekends and bank holidays...which suggests that he was employed.

JenniferHJohnstone · Feb 5, 2017

Peaceful said:
Which parts were convincing?

He first goes through some of the other suspects, giving reasons why they can't be Jack the Ripper.

Bury first moved to London a year before the murders started, in 1887. He was horsemeat butcher - would have given him some anatomical knowledge. Bury lived in the East End by October 1887 - giving him enough time to know the area well. Bury was a heavy drinker. The interesting thing in the FBI report is that it says that Jack would have probably drank before he murdered. To ''loosen up'' because he was introverted.

We first have Bury being violent, in early 1888. On April 7th, Bury was found kneeling over a woman, attempting to cut her throat. Her name was Elizabeth Haynes.

Bury was known to frequent prostitutes. And, was known to be violent to his wife. He eventually murdered her while back in Scotland, some time after the ripper murders stopped. There was writing on his basement wall saying something akin to I am Jack.

Most of the murders would have been close to were Bury lived and worked. He could have murdered while going to work. His profession of being a slaughterer would have been a perfect disguise for him...the blood wouldn't have attracted attention.

It would also explain why the ripper murders stopped. By early 1889, Bury was arrested and then hanged for the murder of his wife.

These are just some of the points in the essay of the book.

Although, one down fall is, is that there is no hard evidence against Bury. But, he seems to be one of the more plausible suspects.

Peaceful · Feb 5, 2017

JenniferHJohnstone said:
True. Though, the mutilation of Eddowes was around 5-10 minutes.

It seems as if he evaded a close call from being captured twice that night. Once with Stride, then Eddowes.

He was either very lucky. Or new police patrols well...

From memory I believe the police beats around Mitre Square were changed that very night, so JTR wouldn't have known.

Then again, he didn't need to know them nor did he need luck.

The simple fact of the matter is that policemen could be heard approaching and with the street lighting he could have disappeared into the shadows with a policeman within 40 metres and the policeman wouldn't have known JTR had been there seconds earlier.

The problem with Stride's murder is that we can only assume when she was killed. There are various conflicting witness accounts of what they were doing and where they were that night. I think it is reasonable to assume he was disturbed because there was a club at Berner Street with people coming and going (think it was an International Workman's club populated largely by some of the East End's Jewish population). Again though, unless someone stumbled upon JTR in the act, which clearly didn't happen, he would have been away and into night upon hearing someone approaching.

In terms of the time to mutilate Eddowes, it depends upon which doctor/s you believe, both contemporary and modern. Some say he was quite skilled in what he did; others that the sweeps of the knife were crude and opportunistic and could have been done within 3 minutes.

I once read a very interesting post from someone involved in the surgical profession, and he said that there were certain procedures undertaken by JTR that only someone familiar with the operating theatre would have known. This was on a board that included every well known author on the subject and he mentioned things from the autopsy and doctor reports that no one had picked up on, and no one could refute what he had to say. I can't remember exactly what they were but something like placing certain minor organs in certain parts of the body in order to make the major organ removal simple.

Gudas · Feb 5, 2017

Jack the Ripper was an immigrant of Polish descent. Police solved the problems using DNA testing.

It is one of the world's greatest murder mysteries and has baffled investigators for more than a century.

But now an author and self-confessed "armchair detective" has claimed to have solved who Jack the Ripper was.

Share

Russell Edwards has identified Aaron Kosminski, a 23-year-old Polish immigrant who ended up dying in an asylum, as the murderer.

He said Kosminski was "definitely, categorically and absolutely" the man behind the grisly killing spree in 1888 in London's East End.

Mr Edwards said a blood-stained shawl he bought in 2007 after an auction in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, held vital DNA evidence that led him to the apparent perpetrator.

He added: "I have got the only piece of forensic evidence in the whole history of the case. I've spent 14 years working on it, and we have definitively solved the mystery of who Jack the Ripper was.

The rest : Jack the Ripper 'was a Pole who died in asylum' - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

Peaceful · Feb 5, 2017

JenniferHJohnstone said:
He first goes through some of the other suspects, giving reasons why they can't be Jack the Ripper.

Bury first moved to London a year before the murders started, in 1887. He was horsemeat butcher - would have given him some anatomical knowledge. Bury lived in the East End by October 1887 - giving him enough time to know the area well. Bury was a heavy drinker. The interesting thing in the FBI report is that it says that Jack would have probably drank before he murdered. To ''loosen up'' because he was introverted.

We first have Bury being violent, in early 1888. On April 7th, Bury was found kneeling over a woman, attempting to cut her throat. Her name was Elizabeth Haynes.

Bury was known to frequent prostitutes. And, was known to be violent to his wife. He eventually murdered her while back in Scotland, some time after the ripper murders stopped. There was writing on his basement wall saying something akin to I am Jack.

Most of the murders would have been close to were Bury lived and worked. He could have murdered while going to work. His profession of being a slaughterer would have been a perfect disguise for him...the blood wouldn't have attracted attention.

It would also explain why the ripper murders stopped. By early 1889, Bury was arrested and then hanged for the murder of his wife.

These are just some of the points in the essay of the book.

Although, one down fall is, is that there is no hard evidence against Bury. But, he seems to be one of the more plausible suspects.

The East End was a transient place full to the brim of drinkers and butchers. So, no change there.

There is no evidence that anyone wrote anything on the wall in the place where he lived in Dundee. I believe the writing was supposed to state: "Jack the Ripper lives behind this door".

Can you post a link to this story of Bury attempting to cut the throat of a woman?

Peaceful · Feb 5, 2017

Gudas said:
Jack the Ripper was an immigrant of Polish descent. Police solved the problems using DNA testing.

They didn't solve it at all.

But, if you mean it was the person known as "Kosminski", who was a Polish Jew, then he remains the best suspect.

On the grounds that Swanson left notes in his book stating Kosminksi had been picked out in an ID. If anyone would know that it would be Swanson as he was the administrative head of the investigation - everything would have gone through him. There are problems with the ID though in that we don't know who pointed him out as the murderer, we don't know which murder he was accused being accused of and we don't know where the ID took place.

Just a hunch, but based upon what we know of Kosminski's behaviour he doesn't appear to fit the bill to me.

Gudas · Feb 5, 2017

Peaceful said:
They didn't solve it at all.

But, if you mean it was the person known as "Kosminski", who was a Polish Jew, then he remains the best suspect.

On the grounds that Swanson left notes in his book stating Kosminksi had been picked out in an ID. If anyone would know that it would be Swanson as he was the administrative head of the investigation - everything would have gone through him. There are problems with the ID though in that we don't know who pointed him out as the murderer, we don't know which murder he was accused being accused of and we don't know where the ID took place.

Just a hunch, but based upon what we know of Kosminski's behaviour he doesn't appear to fit the bill to me.

Why do you think they didn't solve it when they used blood stain and DNA testing?

He [investigator] said Kosminski was "definitely, categorically and absolutely" the man behind the grisly killing spree in 1888 in London's East End.

Peaceful · Feb 5, 2017

Gudas said:
Why do you think they didn't solve it when they used blood stain and DNA testing?

He [investigator] said Kosminski was "definitely, categorically and absolutely" the man behind the grisly killing spree in 1888 in London's East End.

You're mistaken.

Gudas · Feb 5, 2017

Peaceful said:
You're mistaken.

From the article:

But then, in 2007, he saw that a shawl found next to the body of Catherine Eddowes, one of the Ripper's victims, was up for sale.
He bought it and enlisted the help of Jari Louhelainen, an expert in molecular biology, who used pioneering techniques to find DNA in the blood on the shawl and, from that, track down the Ripper.
Jack the Ripper 'was a Pole who died in asylum' - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

Peaceful · Feb 5, 2017

Gudas said:
From the article:

But then, in 2007, he saw that a shawl found next to the body of Catherine Eddowes, one of the Ripper's victims, was up for sale.
He bought it and enlisted the help of Jari Louhelainen, an expert in molecular biology, who used pioneering techniques to find DNA in the blood on the shawl and, from that, track down the Ripper.
Jack the Ripper 'was a Pole who died in asylum' - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

The DNA testing was flawed and Louhelainen's reputation was left damaged. Even he doesn't claim that: "it has been conclusively solved".

It seems world opinion is divided on the matter, you believe it has been 'conclusively solved'; the rest of the world disagrees.

Gudas · Feb 5, 2017

Peaceful said:
The DNA testing was flawed and Louhelainen's reputation was left damaged. Even he doesn't claim that: "it has been conclusively solved".

It seems world opinion is divided on the matter, you believe it has been 'conclusively solved'; the rest of the world disagrees.

First , you claimed I was wrong about the DNA testing was done. Now, you are suggesting the testing was flawed. How do you know the testying was flawed? Mind you scientists extract DNA from remains dated to Brtonze Age, Neolithic and even Mesolithic. Who is the world? People such as yourself who doesn't know about scientific DNA testing ; how it was carried and somehow they disagree? It looks like some want the case to be unsolved to have a mystery.

Peaceful · Feb 6, 2017

Gudas said:
How do you know the testying was flawed?

Well, I don't claim to have undertaken my own DNA test.

But, it is recorded that the DNA testing that you refer to did not produce the conclusion you seem to think it did. Furthermore, the DNA testing that you refer to has been discredited. And, the person you mentioned in your post who conducted the test has accepted and disclosed that the DNA test that he undertook, the one to which you refer, is of no consequence.

How do I know? Well, you know how you performed a cursory search of the internet to find the article from the Belfast Telegraph? You simply need to do a little bit more digging on the internet to find the information that will confirm that which I'm placing before you.

Straudenbecker · Feb 6, 2017

Aaron Kosminski does not fit the profile. Arguments about David Cohen aka Nathan Kaminsky as being Jack the Ripper have more credibility for him being at the top of the list. Swanson notes, we're about a witness who found one of bodies at the same time as Aaron Kosminski found it as well. It was not a lineup, that Kosminski was picked from, but a witness say someone else can vouch for him.

Peter K · Feb 6, 2017

If I recall correctly, it has been proven that he was a Polish Jew.

Peaceful · Feb 6, 2017

Straudenbecker said:
Aaron Kosminski does not fit the profile. Arguments about David Cohen aka Nathan Kaminsky as being Jack the Ripper have more credibility for him being at the top of the list. Swanson notes, we're about a witness who found one of bodies at the same time as Aaron Kosminski found it as well. It was not a lineup, that Kosminski was picked from, but a witness say someone else can vouch for him.

Not the case at all.

What is usually referred to as the "Swanson Marginalia" reads something like: "we took the suspect to the Seaside Home where suspect was identified by a fellow Jew, but fellow Jew would not provide evidence in court as suspect would have hanged and witness did not want that on his mind, and the suspect knew he had been identified and no such crime happened in London after that. Suspect's name was Kosminski".

The problems are: we don't know where the Seaside Home was, it could be a police retirement home or an ex-sailor's institute or something else; we don't know who the witness was although it is speculated that it must have been either Schwarz (Berner Street) or Lawende (Mitre Square); we don't know what the supposed witness saw the supposed suspect doing.

There is absolutely no reference to Kosminski or anyone else finding a body.

Whether or not Kosminski fits the profile is open to debate, but I tend to agree with you. He was delusional and would only eat food out of the gutters, but that was 1890/91 and we don't know what state he was in during 1888.

Search

Search

Who do you think Jack the Ripper was?

JenniferHJohnstone

JenniferHJohnstone

Davidius

JenniferHJohnstone

JenniferHJohnstone

JenniferHJohnstone

JenniferHJohnstone

Peaceful

Gudas

Peaceful

Peaceful

Gudas

Peaceful

Gudas

Peaceful

Gudas

Peaceful

Straudenbecker

Peter K

Peaceful

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions