|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
D Neal
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 10:56 am: | 
|
Hi
It has often been commented that the truth behind the Ripper case lies with the documented statements made by the police at or around 1888.
The most famous of statements being Macnaghten's Memoranda. But if we look further back we find even better documented evidence by a man heading the police at the time and not years later.
19th September 1888 - Sir Charles Warren wrote that he suspected Oswald Puckridge, he also suspected Jacob Isenschmid who turned out to be in an Asylum on the nights of later murders. Whereas Oswald Puckridge movements have remained a mystery.
So could it be that Sir Charles Warren wasn't as useless as previously thought? Could it be that he indeed new the identity of JTR?
Just a thought.
Regards
D.Neal
PS. If there is anyone who is unfamiliar with Puckridge or Isenschmid I can expand further.
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 571
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 11:57 am: |
|
Hi,
I am unfamiliar with both of those men so if you wouldn't mind expanding that would be very helpful to me. Thank you in advance.
Sarah |
D Neal
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 8:31 am: |
|
Hi Sarah
Thanks for your interest.
Joseph (Jacob) Issenschmidt - He would have been aged about 38 at the time of the Whitechapel murders. Joseph was a Butcher who lived in Holloway and in 1887 he spent ten weeks in Colney Hatch Asylum.
On the 11th September 1888 he was accused of being the murderer due to the fact that he was of unsound mind, frequently out of his house and his movements couldn't be accounted for on the night that Annie Chapman was killed.
On the 17th September he was sent to Fairfield Road Asylum, Bow. At this time a Police Officer learned that Joseph had told a number of women in Holloway that he was in fact 'Leather Apron'
To make a living Joseph would buy sheep's heads ,feet & kidneys. He would dress these items and then sell them in the West End.
There are a number of Metropolitan Police reports which refer to the Investigation into Joseph. Issenschmidt's wife stated that she hadn't seen him for some time and that he was in the habit of carrying with him large butcher's knives.
On the 18 September 1888 Inspector Abberline stated in a report relating to Joseph that 'Although at present we are unable to procure any evidence to connect him with the murders, he appears to be the most likely person that has come under our notice to have committed the crimes'
As it turned out Joseph was incarcerated at the times of the later murders, which ruled him out of being the true 'Leather Apron'-'Jack the Ripper'
Oswald Puckridge - He was born on 13th June 1838 which would make him aged 50 at the time of the Ripper crimes. Oswald was admitted to Hoxton House Lunatic Asylum on 6th January 1888 and was released on 4th August 1888, he was discharged as 'relieved' but not cured.
Sir Charles Warren believed Puckridge to have been trained as a surgeon but he was infact a chemist.
Puckridge was mentally ill and had threatend to 'rip people up with a long knife'. In September 1888 he was being looked for but could not be found.
Oswalds whereabouts during the 'Rippers reign of Terror' have never really been ascertained.
In 1900 he was staying in a men's lodging house at 34 St John's Lane , Clerkenwell. He was then admitted on 28th May the same year to Holborn Workhouse , City Road. Oswald Puckridge died on 1st June 1900 of Broncho Pneumonia, aged 62.
I hope this information has been useful to you and if there is anything else that you would like to know just ask.
Who is your preferred suspect?
Regards
D.Neal |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 576
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 6:09 am: |
|
Hi,
Thank you. That was very helpful. Wouldn't Puckridge have been a bit too old to have been Jack though? Although if he was mad then I suppose he could have done anything. Do you know what exactly was wrong with him as one thing I know is that some people back then were locked away when the authorities deemed them mad whereas in today's society some of those people wouldn't have been classified mad. Being homosexual is one of the things people were called mad for whereas today we know they aren't mad.
My personal preferred suspect at present is Barnett by I'm only about 80% - 85% sure on this.
Sarah |
D Neal
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 4:43 pm: |
|
Hi Sarah
I agree, Puckridge's age doesn't fit with the general opinion by witnesses as to the Ripper's age, Infact there is only one instance where his age matches a witness statement.
I suppose what we need to ask is were the witnesses correct with there descriptions?
Alot of witnesses descriptions vary, with regard to age, height, stature etc. I think it may have been a case of people coming forward with statements hoping who they saw was the 'Ripper'.
There may have been a number of cases whereby witness statements were in part or fully fabricated.
There is not much at all known about Puckridge, any records which may have contained information on him have either been destroyed or lost, which does make him quite intriguing. With regard to why he was sent to Hoxton Asylum, all that can be ascertained is that he was suffering from some sort of mental illness. What is very interesting is that he was released having not been cured.
I believe his mental illness certainly ended his career as a Chemist as he ended his life with his occupation being that of a General Labourer.
Barnett is a very interesting suspect indeed. He had the local knowledge, he possibly had a motive, he had experience of gutting. What interests me is that he is the only one of a handful of suspects that we know for sure new at least one of the victims.
Which of the books on Barnett have you read ?
Another interesting point on Barnett is that if he was the 'Ripper' it could explain why the murder of Mary Jane Kelly was one of such absolute butchery. Again if you would like me to expand on this theory, I can do.
Regards
D.Neal |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1075
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 8:06 pm: |
|
Oswald Puckridge
Birth: 1838
His birth was registered under the spelling Oswald Puckeridge in Worthing, Sussex in the 3rd Quarter (July-September). Reference Vol 7, Page 463.
Death: 1900
His death was registered in Shoreditch in the 2nd Quarter (April-June) with the surname spelt Puckridge. Reference Vol 1c, Page 51.
Marriage:
Puckridge's marriage was registered in the last quarter of 1868. The four persons listed on that page of the register are:
Burdett, Amy
Grimes, John
Puckridge, Oswald
Puddle, Ellen
It is therefore necessary to find out if Puckridge married Amy Burdett or Ellen Puddle.
I have so far been unable to trace Puckeridge in either the 1871 or 1881 census returns.
The first likely census sighting is the 1891 census for Devon.
An individual listed as Oswald Buckridge is listed as a boarder at a house called Soldridge in Bovey Tracey. He is a widower, aged 52 (the correct age for Puckeridge) and born in Sussex (Puckeridge's birth was registered in Worthing, Sussex). His trade/profession is listed as unknown.
Full household listing is below
I will post any developments here on any info I find.
Chris
 |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1076
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 8:16 pm: |
|
I'm attaching an enlargement of the Oswald Buckridge name. As a cross check I have tried under the name Oswald Buckridge in 1871, 1881 and 1901 and can find no one of this name. The head of household is a farmer whose name on enlargement can be read as James Hillier.
Chris
 |
Paul Williams
Sergeant
Username: Wehrwulf
Post Number: 28
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 9:14 am: |
|
Puckridge's wife was Ellen Buddle or Puddle depending on which source is used. |
Paul Williams
Sergeant
Username: Wehrwulf
Post Number: 38
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 1:13 pm: |
|
I think I've found Puckridge in 1871 with wife Ellen at 9 Upper Queen Street Deal. The system won't let me upload the census page as the file is too big but I will email it to anyone who wants a copy, pecw@hotmail.com
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2048
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 2:07 pm: |
|
Oswald Puckeridge
1861:
41 High Street, Exeter, Devon
Oswald Puckeridge aged 21 born Bampham, Sussex - Chemist
1871:
9 Upper Queen Street, Deal, Kent
Head: Oswald Puckeridge aged 32 born Burpham, Sussex - Licensed victualler
Wife: Ellen Puckeridge aged 33 born Minster, Kent
Son: Edward B Puckeridge aged 1 born Deal, Kent
Servants:
Eliza Banks aged 23 born Canterbury
Rose Banks aged 19 born Canterbury - Nurse
Visitor - Harriet Laslett aged 19 born Margate
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2049
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 2:17 pm: |
|
In 1881 Puckeridge's son is listed as living with his grandmother in Kent:
1881:
High Street, Minster, Kent
Head: Ann S Buddel (Widow) aged 78 born Minster - Annuitant
Grandson - Edward B Puckridge aged 11 born Deal, Kent
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2050
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Two more entries that might be of interest:
1891:
19 Tylney Road, Bromley, Kent
Head: Helen Puckeridge aged 54 born Minster, Kent - Grocer (Married)
Son - Edward Puckeridge aged 21 born Deal - Grocer
Cousin - Annie nash aged 57 born Minster
1901:
17-19 Tylney Road, Bromley, Kent (Shop)
Head: Edward Puckridge aged 31 born Deal - Grocer
Wife: Florence Puckridge aged 31 born Cambridgeshire
Daughter: Lillian Puckridge aged 8 monthis born Lowestoft, Suffolk
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
