|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through April 24, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Buchan, Edward:
Archive through April 24, 1999
Author: Roger Barber
Saturday, 27 February 1999 - 04:01 pm |        | Why should JTR have been a famous personality? He is far more likely to have been a nobody with low self esteem. I wrote an article for The Criminologist and have an entry in The Jack The Ripper A-Z regarding Edward Buchan as the most likely suspect. He was 30, single, and worked in his father's marine stores shop filling shelves.
He committed suicide on the day of Mary Kelly's funeral by cutting his throat with a knife and his family were quoted as saying that he had been acting in a strange manner recently. The most damming fact is that he killed himself on his birthday, and a psychological profiler could match this action to the way that organs were removed from the bodies. It showed that JTR hated himself and in removing the reproductive organs was expressing his despair at having been born at all.
With this in mind, I was stunned to see the reference in this file to him being suspected but cleared of all charges. Can you please share the source of this information as it surely makes him an even more likely candidate.
If anyone else has information, I would like to know. |
Author: Anonymous
Sunday, 28 February 1999 - 02:53 am | | It simply is not good enough to find an 'appropriate' suicide and then label him as 'Jack the Ripper' without a scrap of supporting evidence.
Who says that 'Jack the Ripper' was a famous personality? Not one of the long-standing named suspects, Druitt, Kosminski, and Ostrog was a famous personality. In fact the best known 'famous personality suspects' (the Duke of Clarence, Gull, Sickert, etc. etc.) are all the products of the over-fertile imagination of authors out to write a 'good story' and are most certainly not suspects at all.
I am sure that the family of the troubled Edward Buchan would have been horrified to think that his memory would be blackened by an unfounded allegation of this sort.
It seems to be good enough for modern 'researchers' to root out a contemporary name and label him as the 'Ripper' in this manner by applying the ever-flexible 'modern profiling' techniques (which are usually totally inappropriate) to someone such as poor Buchan. They then sit back and revel in the arguable kudos of being proclaimed a 'Theorist' or 'Author' in a book on the subject.
Even worse in this case, Mr Barber takes the huge leap of labelling his 'find' as 'the most likely suspect.' Really? And on what grounds Mr Barber? Your own dubious psychological profiling? Even a qualified psychiatrist (which I am assuming you are not) would be loath to make these imaginative accusations against a person who died 111 years ago and about whom we know very little.
Please could you, Mr Barber, share with us the source that Buchan was suspected at all, let alone 'cleared of all charges.' After all, to be cleared you have to be suspected in the first place, and Buchan never was. That is until Mr Barber unfortunately found his name.
It is high time that this 'game' of plucking names out of the papers or records, and then labelling them 'Jack the Ripper' with no basis for doing so, stopped.
I am sure that true historians are horrified at these ongoing shenanigans. |
Author: Nikki Dormer
Sunday, 28 February 1999 - 06:35 am | | Why do you have to be so rude to people? Why can't you just ask politly for some more information from Roger Barber about why he suspects this man rather than going on about unfounded allegations? Maybe he just wanted to find out what some experts thought about this chap before launching into a long winded post about this man...have you ever thought of that? Give people a break.
Nikki. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 28 February 1999 - 06:35 am | | Hang on a tic. I'm none to keen myself on the old game of 'let's find a suspect and make the facts fit', but all Mr Barber has done is suppose that the murders ceased because the Ripper committed suicide, then looked for the most plausible suicide. This approach has as much and probably a lot more to recommend it than the foundation of some of the theories we've seen advanced. Don't you think you've donned the old hobnails a bit unjustly?
Isn't Mr Barber as welcome to air his ideas here as anyone else - and infinitely more welcome than some of the lamebrains like "Mr Retard"?
And Mr Barber only asked for the source of the quote that Buchan had been cleared of all charges - not an unreasonable request! |
Author: Nikki Dormer
Sunday, 28 February 1999 - 06:47 am | | How exiting!! I just posted a message at exactly the same time as Paul!! I feel so privaleged. (I'm pretty sure I spelt that wrong.)
Nikki. |
Author: Anonymous
Sunday, 28 February 1999 - 03:49 pm | | | You did. |
Author: Anonymous
Sunday, 28 February 1999 - 03:57 pm | | | With Mr Begg's book endorsing this sort of 'research' this is the sort of response I would have expected from him. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 28 February 1999 - 05:08 pm | | The A to Z, is a reference book mentioning all contributions to this subject and inclusion therein obviously is not an endorsement of any such theory or theorist. So which book of mine are you talking about?
Secondly, to paraphrase, I don't have to agree with Mr Barber, but I will defend to the hilt his right to express his ideas, particularly when those ideas have moved him from a comfortable armchair to a chair in some reference library or records office where he has done some orginal research.
Thirdly, all Mr Barber did was to identify himself by name and request the source of a statement. This did not warrant or justify an aggressive and rude response, especially from somebody who hides behind a mask of anonymity.
So, yes, if you expect me to support freedom of speech and freedom to theorise and to condemn any unnecessarily crass and rude comments, then my response was exactly what you expected. |
Author: Anonymous
Sunday, 28 February 1999 - 06:52 pm | | | Grow up. |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 07:15 am | | Hi all,
I had the idea for some time about looking up all those who are registered as just having died after Kelly's death (Naturally only in the East London area) for a period of, let us say, 1 year. Sorting out then only males between say 25 and 50 at death, we may have a chance of finding interesting suspects. If cause of death can be ascertained, that would be even more interesting,
Paul, as profi in this theme, maybe you could say if it were possible and worth it. I don't know what the London records are like, I do know that a lot got lost in the war.
Niki, Mr Anonymous tries to stir up the board with his comments, while hiding behind a believed anonymity. If I have time I write off-line using MS word (No plugging, Microsoft is bloody awful in most cases) and that has an automatic correction facility. Maybe that's cheating, but I don't care.
Mr Anon, some of your comments and points deserve thourough recognition and I defend your right to say that what you think. Attacks on individuals, trying to deny them the rights that you enjoy and misuse, however, is childish and dumb.
Paul is right, and I also support him and all others who defend free speech, or free writing. It is not your place to censor the board. If you like, you can start an attack at me, though. Do your worst, pal. Let's have a bloody good fight if that's what you want.
Best regards,
Bob
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 10:50 am | | Bob:
Firstly, no BMD records got bombed by our German friends. (Don't mention the War.) They were tucked away in a cave. Secondly:
If you really wanted to check all the East End deaths from say November 1888 to December 1889 you could do it but not at OPCS where country-wide records are kept. You'd have to individually check three, maybe four district Registry Offices for the period and because you might end up having to check a thousand or more individual deaths (the indices have names but not ages) you would have to risk very serious money. If you asked me to do it I'd estimate about £6,000. The certificates themselves do give cause of death. You could go through newspaper reports of inquests etc, which is how I believe Roger Barber found Buchan but thats pretty hit and miss. And remember that keeping to those parameters you wouldn't find Druitt.
Peter. |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 11:37 am | | Hi Peter,
Thanks for the info. I know that a lot of records got lost in those years, good that the BMDs got saved.
6000 quid (I have a German keyboard and driver without the pound character) is a hell of a lot of dough. The question is if it COULD bring us further. The obvious reasoning behind it is that Jack could well have been someone completely out of suspicion, or simply a man-in-the-street not more, and not less, likely than anyone else.
There have been lots of work done over madhouse inmates, but the reasoning that Jack may have stopped due to his death could be a lead. IF he was a local man, his death would have been recorded. Your point with Druitt is correct, but there is not much to connect Druitt with Jack (SHRIEKROARHOWDAREYOUETC).
Phil Sugden's book (Paul, I still haven't received your book!) covered a number of possible reasons why, if Jack wrote the letters, why the name 'Jack'. One possible reason he didn't mention could be that Jack was a Jack, a Jack Tar, a sailor. Weak, but better than nuffink.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 11:50 am | | Bob - re my book, check out Bibliofind and ABE. I think I saw a copy there.
Regarding the suicides, as I think I have mentioned before,
The trouble is that even if one assembled a list of all suicides, we wouldn't know what caused the suicide and would be unable to differentiate between someody who killed himself because he was a raving loony who liked to eviscerate women and somebody who killed himself because his business had gone bankrupt. Inquest papers would tell us a lot, but very few have survived, so we'd have to depend on the newspapers having reported the inquest, which they won't have done in many cases. But even if we could narrow down the list, we still couldn't account for the people who maybe died suddenly, moved away from the area and killed themselves, went abroad and ditto. And so on and so on. I think it would actually be a hopeless task, far too expensive to undertake i both terms of money and manpower. |
Author: Anonymous
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 12:53 pm | | | Ah nice to see some common sense. Trouble is, just how many cases of this sort of serial killer committing suicide are there? Very few I fear. |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 02:43 pm | | Hi Paul, Hi Anon,
Paul, thanks for the book info. I think I'll cancel the Amazon order. It's been actual for more than two months now and no sign. I won't castigate Amazon though, they were pretty prompt with other orders.
About the death records idea, I was thinking of deaths due to natural causes assuming that Jack didn't commit suicide. As Mr Anon indicates, there is hardly a serial murderer whom evidence suggests he committed suicide. You have fully answered my question, however, and I think I'll let the matter slide into oblivion.
On the matter of common sense, Mr. Anon, of course some things on the board tend to appear, or are, absurd, but if we were just to write dry, factual, high-intellect, boring statements there wouldn't be a board like ours, I don't believe that even you would bother to take part in such a dusty matter. I'd like to find out who Jack was, and if I have to wade through trouserless speaking ducks, brutal Sooty thugs, knife-brandishing Victorias Queen and all the rest of the stuff, so be it. I can grin and carry on.
Common sense dictates that you know and accept the weaknesses of the world and yourself. Putting some smartarse answer on a board doesn't particularly increase the chances of being thought smart yourself. Some of what I assume are your points are good and well thought out, why waste your intellect on making a twot of yourself.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Calogridis
Friday, 23 April 1999 - 11:30 pm | | Howdy Peter, Paul, Bob!
Eddy Buchan's timing strikes me as curious. He kills himself with a knife on the day of Mary Kelly's inquest (is this correct?). One assumes the real Ripper would still have the smell of death in his nostrils from that bit of overkill.
So why not commit suicide? Even though it is atypical of serial killers- didn't Jack the Stripper commit suicide? And after all, the Ripper was a pioneer of sorts, compounded by being in a stodgy Victorian society. Let's face it, he was one sick piranha! So why not complete the task, if he had enough sanity to do it.
Thanks for the good ideas. I realize Buchan may have just been one of many suicides.
Cheers......Mike |
Author: Calogridis
Friday, 23 April 1999 - 11:39 pm | | Howdy Roger!
Sorry, I just now reread your initial memo- had originally read it several weeks ago and didn't correctly recollect the details of Buchan's suicide. You said he killed himself on the day of Mary Kelly's funeral (not inquest- my apologies). It was just a few days after the murder, right? And he slit his throat with a knife. I got it straight now, mate! Thanks for the details. Curiouser and curiouser.
Cheers.....Mike |
Author: Caz
Saturday, 24 April 1999 - 03:12 am | | Without reading all the details, what made them conclude that it was suicide? As Mike says, curiouser every day here. The method seems a tad more problematic than throwing oneself off Beachey Head, but who knows? How's the three-pipe problem coming along?
I'm using a mate's computer thismorning after a night out on the piss, I'm sure he won't mind.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Vic
Saturday, 24 April 1999 - 03:16 am | | Hi All,
No, I don't mind. Having seen a few of the previous items on the postboard I'm terrified of saying anything for fear of being slagged off or being condemned for being an itinerant cretin.
See you
Vic |
Author: Caz
Saturday, 24 April 1999 - 07:50 am | | Back at home now, folks.
Oh dear,
I've just seen the birthday reference in Roger's original post. What IS going on here?
Carrie Brown (aka Old Shakespeare) was killed on 23rd April 1891, ie the anniversary of the bard's birth (and death) day. Just one more coincidence I guess.
Perhaps Ashling was right to say it would be 'spooky' if Chapman had died on her birthday. Is there even more to Jack's series than meets the eye?
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
