Author: Peter Birchwood
Monday, 26 April 1999 - 11:25 am |        |
Vic:
Don't be terrified. There's only a few of us who are crazed with the blood of those poor innocents who dare to have a view opposing ours. I, myself have not eaten a baby since Mad Cow Disease moved species. If you have a theory or a question, just put it forward. Is an itinerant cretin one who moves around a lot?
Peter. |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 04:05 pm | |
As Vic is unlikely to add to his brief but self-explanatory message, perhaps I can answer for him. Yes, you can be assured Victor is perfectly aware of the meaning of itinerant. He 'wandered' into the Casebook and 'wandered' out again sharpish. (The cretin bit was ironic)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Wednesday, 28 April 1999 - 04:05 pm | |
Ship Lists:
The printed Index of Passemgers and immigrants doesn't show any Grossmiths leaving Europe for the US. (Checked up to the 1992 addendum.) It might be worth looking through the existing ship lists at the PRO but that's a lengthy job. |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 29 April 1999 - 04:11 am | |
Done it. No Grossmiths found so far. I wasn't really expecting any though, as they tended to go in for ridiculous pseudonyms, of which I found two possibles (but it took all day and was totally knackering). This is supported by the fact that we KNOW they both travelled back and forth to the US, so they couldn't have used their real names if there are no Grossmiths listed where they damn well ought to be.
When I have more time, I may go back and search more thoroughly, armed with my more up-to-date info.
Thanks Peter, your input is much appreciated, honestly.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Saturday, 17 July 1999 - 05:30 am | |
A new dissertation on Edward Buchan can now be found on the Dissertations page.
-- Stephen |
Author: scriblerius
Saturday, 17 July 1999 - 12:58 pm | |
| I can agree with the method used to find Buchan, which sounds perfectly reasonable. But this essay is almost all padding and weak reasoning. I would say there is a lot of work to be done here before the author can even talk about a "theory" let alone go out publishing results. |
Author: RED DEMON
Saturday, 17 July 1999 - 10:31 pm | |
Hello All!
Wonderful essay!!! I must say that it was a very respectable approach, starting from the idea that Jack may have committed suicide and then researching suicides in the area at the time. Just a couple of thoughts...To the best of my knowledge, it is most accepted that Jack the Ripper was RIGHT handed. This seems to be most likely. Also, a big deal was made at the time of the murders of the murderers ability to escape unseen and unheard...it was brought up by many that the killer had rubber-soled shoes, still not the common footwear of the time. Who else would be able to put together a more quiet shoe than a shoemaker? Just a thought.
This is an awesome line of research. Keep it up. I must also say, however, that it didn't set too well with me when I read at the end of the essay how Buchan just 'had' to be Jack the Ripper and that he was the most likely candidate brought forth so far. Let's not put the cart before the horse. Learn from others mistakes. Do the research and let the results speak for themselves. I most definately look forward to reading more on this most interesting suspect. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: poetdreamerscholar@yahoo.com
Thursday, 14 October 1999 - 11:52 pm | |
Re: Ed Buchan - a few years back, you may recall, there was a theory floating about that the Ripper was actually Lewis Carroll. (Personally, I think Queen Victoria makes a more viable candidate than Mr. Dodgson!)
In any case, one line from a Ripper letter (I forget which one, alas) was anagrammed into "proof" of Lewis Carroll's "guilt." I took that same line and within 15 minutes turned it into "I'm Ed Buchan - no arty trio."
Yeah, Ed's guilty, all right. About as guilty as Mr. Wonderland and Vicky.
poetdreamerscholar@yahoo.com (George Wagner in Cincinnati, Ohio) |
Author: NickDanger
Sunday, 21 November 1999 - 11:58 pm | |
I would like to ask Mr. Barber, or anyone else, if research on Edward Buchan is still continuing?
I share some of the misgivings of posters who responded initially, but I must admit that the circumstances are intriguing and I hope further investigation is possible.
Can anyone give us an update?
Thanks,
Nick |
Author: Roger Barber
Friday, 26 November 1999 - 10:29 am | |
Nick
Just to say that I haven't had the time to do more research. I tried to find Buchan's burial record or grave without success. Also the coroner's inquest records have been lost or destroyed. I did some research on his family, but again haven't managed to find any living relatives. I thought it would be interesting to find a photograph of him. It always intrigued me how the Duke of Clarence was ever put forward as a suspect, and it crossed my mind that someone was seen in the area who looked like him. As Buchan was Edward, could he have been called Eddie? It just goes on and on.
Anyway, I would be interested if anyone has any insight into why JTR cut out out the victims'
organs. I believe this is the main pointer towards Buchan as he committed suicide on his birthday. |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Friday, 26 November 1999 - 11:52 am | |
Hi, all:
The case of Edward Buchan is certainly intriguing. I would wonder though how anyone in committing suicide could have "nearly severed his [own] head from his body"? I wonder if it could have been a case of murder rather than suicide. It is a shame that the coroner's records appear to be missing. While I am not sure I can agree with Roger Barber that Buchan makes a leading candidate for Jack the Ripper I would encourage him to continue with his research. Although Buchan might not be at the head of the pack, he makes a better candidate than a number of others whom I shall not mention here.
Chris George
Casebook Productions
Editor, Ripper Notes
jacktripper@fcmail.com
Organizer, "Jack the Ripper: A Century of Myth"
Park Ridge Marriott, Park Ridge, NJ, April 8-9, 2000
http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/conference.htm |
Author: NickDanger
Sunday, 28 November 1999 - 01:09 pm | |
Hi Roger and Chris,
Thanks very much for your responses. Roger, I fully understand the time factor. Time is our most valued commodity and is always in short supply. Hopefully at some time in the future further attempts can be made. Sometimes picking up a very small thread can lead to much unraveling. Regrettably, all I am able to offer is encouragement.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: patrice meursaultner
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 02:13 pm | |
This thread seems to have dried up but I only just came across it so I will post anyway. Seems to me that whole idea that the ripper committed suicide is based on a (sadly) quaint and archaic view of murder. It was thought back at the time of the ripper killigs that anyone who was capable of such atrocities would surely either go completely mad or kill himself. However a century and more on it is clear that this is simply not the case.
It has been pointed out how serial killers don't commit suicide. One need only look at Ted Bundy for confirmation of this. Bundy who similiarly spiraled into more frenzied killing, his career culminating in his brutal attack on a sorority house (the second to last murder(s) before he was captured). Bundy may have had an unconscious wish to get caught and punished, seen in his sloppy behaviour but consciously he very much wanted to stay free and alive. The thing about Bundy and I suspect the ripper, was their animal like instinct for self preservation. Bundy escaped from one prison and fought his own execution tooth and nail.
It would be more comforting if murderers did off themselves or go crazy but generally speaking they don't seem to. To follow the romantic Victorian notion that the ripper must have killed himself doesn't seem likely to lead to the actual murderer and only lead to dead ends like Druitt and Buchan.
I like to think of the movie "The Ruling Class" when I contemplate what happened to the Ripper. If one recalls the Peter O'toole character having mutated from christ to the ripper joins the house of lords where his insane views are greeted warmly. I'd look closely into the Tory party of the era.
Cheers,
P.Meursaultner |
Author: patrice meursaultner
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 02:19 pm | |
To follow up on my own post it just occurred to me that Ted Bundy did in fact work of the Republican party when he lived in Washington State. The Republican party being pretty much the equivalent of the Tory party (minus the delectable sex scandals), and being a Republican in a liberal town like Seattle in the 1970's showed real reactionary flair. Maybe Jack flirted with politics? Has anyone looked into this?
P.M. |
Author: Jim Leen
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 03:04 pm | |
Hello Everybody,
If we consider that everyone is born free before the eyes of God, i.e. they have the power to make up their own mind etc, then it would seem that there may be no such thing as a typical serial killer. One only has to look at Ian Brady's present stance to see a typical serial killer that wishes to die. On the other hand, Hindley is holding on for dear life.
Thanking you with another typically inconclusive post.
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 03:16 am | |
I think Patrice was making the point that normal people would have assumed the glut in Miller's Court would result in the ripper committing suicide from remorse.
Very different with Brady, no remorse there, just the creeping certainty over the years that his favourite hobby had been taken from him.
Perhaps only incapacitated serial killers' thoughts turn to self-destruction?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 07:16 am | |
| Interestingly Patrice , Randolph 'Randy' H. Spencer Churchill was a Tory M.P. during this period , in fact he was Leader of the House for a while as Salisbury sat in the Lords... |
Author: patrice meursaultner
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 04:47 pm | |
All,
I do think that there are certain, understandable, romantic notions about criminals and conscience. It is interesting, to me, to note that Dostoevsky was writing "Crime and Punishment" around this time. (I assume his whereabouts are accounted for!) Undoubtedly the book captures the humanist idea of a murderer who is driven mad by his conscience. Trouble is this doesn't account for the disturbing creature known as the sociopath. Clearly Bundy, Brady, and Jack are sociopaths, people without feelings for others, and thus don't suffer much from remorse.
This takes one into the dodgy area of the pyschology of a serial killer. A guy like Jack must be "mad", to have committed such atrocities yet just as clearly he wasn't some foaming lipped madman either or he would have been caught. His "madness" most likely consisted of his utter lack of feeling for other people, something not necessarily visible to other people (and needless to say great for say civil service). These people are like animals, literally, they kill without thought of the suffering involved and like animals don't wish to be caught or killed. That's why I think Jack's suicide is unlikely, unless he was cornered. This all conjecture but I think it fits more squarely with what we've learned in the past century of dealing with Jack's then the more romantic notions of the Victorian era.
So I dare say we stop beating the brushes for suicides and poets and really bear down on the real heartless bastards running about at the time and where better to start then the Tory party? (A Churchill with the rather ambigious nick name of "Randy" does seem promising)... |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 09:12 pm | |
| Actually the comparison to animals is rather unfair, I think. Haven't there actually been instances of dolphins saving drowning humans? I believe a study was once done on animal altruism with some surprising results. |
Author: NickDanger
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 12:52 am | |
Hi all,
When I look at the photo of MJK on the bed, the one thing that is more chilling than the horrific sight itself, is to contemplate the mind that could conceive of and perform these acts and probably revel in and linger over them as well. This is not garden variety murder. It remains to this day one of the most striking images of what human beings are capable of doing to one another. Even in our jaded present with daily horrors that jar our sensibilities, this image stands alone in it's ability to shock.
I remember a line from Tom Cullen's book (the first Ripper book I ever read), he said that JTR 'was a man being chased all over hell by his own private demons'. I still consider this to be the best one line description of the Ripper that I have ever seen. The bare facts of the death of Edward Buchan, if true, could well be the act of such a person. I have seen little in modern profiling techniques that is of value in examining the Ripper case. I also think it's of questionable value to compare JTR to any of our 20th Century SKs. Regardless of their motivations, these individuals have to be evaluated within the context of their time and place in history. As to the probablility that SKs do or do not commit suicide, we have nowhere near enough data and experience to draw firm conclusions.
I remain intrigued by the case of Edward Buchan, but alas, we simply do not know enough about him or his circumstances to be anything more than curious about him. However, if Roger Barber decides to write a book about Buchan, I will be first on the backorder list. I invite anyone who hasn't, to read his essay in the 'Dissertations' portion of the website.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: Jill
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 11:25 am | |
Hi Nick,
I agree that circumstances and morale was different in the Victorian age. But still there are some workings of the psyche that are unrelated to the age of time. For example it is statistically known that abuse creates abusers. The majority of pedofile abusers, were abused as children themselves, ... (is this only 20th century related?)
It is often found, over the boundaries of pedofiles, rapists, firelighters, serial killers, ... that they see their victims as nothing more than mere objects, a doll without any feelings except that of pain. They do not identify themselves with their victims. Typically called dissociative behaviour.
Would they commit suicide over a doll, especially when they are dissociated of their own self? And if the same attitude is found over the boundaries of serial crime, wouldn't it also be existent over the boundaries of time?
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 06:03 pm | |
Nick--intriguing post (oh, and thanks again for pointing me towards Tom Cullen in my recent speculations about Druitt).
Your point about MJK is important. I think one of the areas that the conspiracy theorists fall flat (I'm talking about those that think Mary Kelly was 'silenced', etc.) is that no cold-blooded murderer or anyone even remotely sane would have been capable of such an atrocity. Mutilations are rare even for serial killers; in there nightmare quality these are still unmatched. (I always thought 'From Hell, Mister Lusk', chillingly appropriate).
Personally don't think JTR could have been a Jeckyll and Hyde sort, living a double life, respectably fitting in with society when he wasn't out prowling the streets of Whitechapel. We need to find someone who is outwardly disturbed.
So, I agree. Buchan is definitely worth a look. If we can believe the newspaper reports, here's a guy that slit his throat so viciously that he nearly severed his head from his body! This despite the fact that people were trying to restrain him! Such a fellow might be capable of Miller's Court.
As for serial killers committing suicide, I say "maybe". The outsider doesn't have a code of conduct. Certainly not Jack. In this nightmare, anything goes.
Cheers,
RJP |
Author: NickDanger
Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 03:08 am | |
Hi Jill, RJP, all,
Thank you for your thoughtful responses.
Jill - I don't mean to propose that the pathology of SKs now and in 1888 won't show common features. I'm just trying to point out that any template that we try to construct using current profiling methodologies is bound to be ill fitting. Psychopathology is not the only factor to be considered in trying to draw conclusions about a case that is 112 years old and in which little of the original evidence exists and what does exist is rarely definitive . I know it's awfully tempting (I have tried it myself) but I found the gaps to be simply too large. I hope you have better luck.
RJP - I appreciate the n.b. on the Tom Cullen reference and the photo of Druitt's tombstone. I rarely see Cullen cited anymore and it's kind of a shame. I have a soft spot for it because it was my first Ripper book (the paperback edition without any photos) and it launched me on this exasperating quest. I quite agree with you about MJK's mutilations. I just can't buy theories that postulate blackmail retaliation, jealousy or anything else in the 'normal' realm was the motivation behind this hideous crime. This murder was committed by one very serious dude. Just stop to consider what effect that committing this ghastly crime would have on a person, even a psychopath. I think we'd be making a mistake if we were to conclude that psychopaths and sociopaths have absolutely nothing remaining of human feeling and sensibilities. This is an error. Not all these people are that far gone, there may still be fragments of humanity in their tortured psyches. When we consider that Edward Buchan cut his throat in the fearful manner described above in RJP's post, we should also remember that it was done on the day of Mary Kelly's funeral. Coincidence? Certainly possible, but it really hooks me. I Just have a 'feeling', if you know what I mean. Not very scientific, but compelling just the same.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 07:13 pm | |
| Since both Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly were botched attempts at decapitation (Martin Fido suggested that this shows JTR had weak medical knowledge) it makes the suicide of Buchan all the more interesting. But, I'm wondering the same thing that Chris wondered. How severely could a person slit their own throat before going unconscious? Is it really very likely that Buchan nearly cut his own head off? |
Author: NickDanger
Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 10:10 pm | |
Hi RJP and Chris,
There is a book called 'Death Scenes: A Homicide Detective's Scrapbook', 1996, published by Feral House(!). Having pursued an interest in crime over the years, I have become accustomed to examining photographs of crime scenes and autopsies. This book, however, has photographs that shocked even me. Among the crime scene photographs are pictures of women who were mutilated in Ripper fashion. I was surprised at how little blood was actually visible at the scene.
There were also photographs of people who had committed suicide by cutting their own throats. These photographs have to be seen to be believed. More than one victim had slashed their throats resulting in exactly the type of wound that Edward Buchan inflicted on himself. I was simply amazed at how much tissue damage was done. Like you gentlemen, I thought that the description of Buchan's death seemed somewhat improbable, but having seen these photographs, I must conclude that it is not only possible but perhaps more common than we are aware.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 02:08 am | |
| As most of you know I am a retired police officer which means that, over the years, I have dealt with several suicides. I recall one locally where a guy had cut his own throat with a 'Kitchen Devil' knife and cut right down to the vertebrae, the place was awash with blood. Such a method of suicide in Victorian times was common because of the prolific use of the appropriately named 'cut-throat' razor in those days. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 04:40 am | |
Nick and Stewart:
Yikes! Thanks for the elucidation. I'm always glad to see your posts, even when dealing with such grim subject matter.
Best regards,
RJP |
Author: Roger Barber
Sunday, 16 April 2000 - 09:51 am | |
Hi everyone. I'm delighted that there is an open discussion re Edward Buchan as I believe he should not be discounted as a suspect. Although unlike most of the prime candidates, there does not appear to be a direct link to Whitechapel, apart from with Liz Stride.
He lived the whole of his 30 years in Robin Hood Lane, Poplar, which ran off the end of Poplar High Street. You may recall that Liz and her husband ran a coffee shop there a few years before the murders. Buchan would have been between 20 and 25 years old at the time.
The Swedish church was also in Poplar, although as far as I know, the Buchan family would have attended All Saints Poplar if they went to church at all, as Edward and his brothers and sisters were christened there.
The differing opinions about suicide have interested me. I personally don't think that all serial killers have the same psychological make up. Also, not many of them carve up their victims to remove organs. The one factor that I believe links Buchan to JTR is that he committed suicide on his birthday and that JTR tried to remove the womb. The womb is important to both, as this represents the means by which they arrived in the world and hence the origin of the hatred they had for themselves, their mother or both.
On reading the reports of the injuries inflicted on the victims, it would appear that there were slashes to the legs and lower abdomen, indicating a frenzied attack. Kelly was pure carnage, leading surely to a complete breakdown or suicide.
I also believe that the way Buchan killed himself (with a cut throat razor) was the same way that the victims were cut - from behind, with his left hand over their mouth and the right hand cutting across from left to right for maximum leverage.
It is a well known fact that Victorian prostitutes had sex from behind with their skirts up, making it very easy fro the murderer to kill them in this way, and silently.
I would encourage further comment re the psychological make up of JTR as this avenue has not been fully explored.
The Victorian police certainly would not have understood these motivations. |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 16 April 2000 - 08:49 pm | |
Roger,
The Whitechapel murderer did not cut his victims' throats from behind. He first involved them in face-to-face foreplay, then moved his hands around their throats to strangle them. Then he let them fall onto their backs. Then he took out his knife and, from a position on the victim's right (except for Kelly) inflicted a massive wound to the left carotid artery, causing death.
He never attacked a victim from behind.
David |
Author: Roger Barber
Monday, 17 April 2000 - 02:35 am | |
I cannot accept this, as it is a well known fact that Victorian prostitutes had sex with clients by bending over with their skirts up. They were very often able to manipulate the man into completing the act outside them.
From JTR's point of view, it was the opportunity to put his hand over their mouth while he cut from left to right with his knife. He could not have got the leverage to nearly decapitate them from the front. Also, they would have had the opportunity to scream or run, and remember that two of the murders were executed under a window with whole families sleeping inside. The silence of the operation was a major reason he didn't get caught. It would also have been starting to get light, so he had to be quick and would not have had time for "face-to-face foreplay." |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 17 April 2000 - 04:44 am | |
Hi Roger,
Sugden gives many arguments to the fact that JTR killed his victims from the front, not from behind. Check out the post mortems again and read in detail the position of the victims when found.
By the way, it is also a well known fact, that some prostitutes didn't even engage in intercourse while doing their job, but just did some 'body-rubbing' (well I had to give it a name). This is almost surely the method that Martha Tabram had used, since she had at least one client some hours before her death, but the post mortem explicitely says she did not have recent intercourse (I would call 2hs recent). |
Author: Roger Barber
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 03:59 pm | |
| Surely they were positioned in order to mutilate the bodies. In other words, they were killed as I suggest and then laid out on the ground to enable him to cut them up. And what about the lack of blood? Surely the victim's clothes soaked it up. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 06:44 pm | |
Some of the victims (if not almost all) were not only cut to the throat, they were strangled first. If JTR would have attacked from behind, he would have need to do that with a chord or handkerchief.
Strangulation marks by chord or by bare hands leave a totally different mark. The bruises on the victims faces and neck point to the use of hands.
Using his hands to strangle from behind he would still have needed to finish the strangulation from the front and turn his full conscious frighting victim. Since there is no evidence displayed of such a cat-fight, he came from the front from the beginning.
When using bare hands in an attack from behind, it would have been easier to break the victims neck. Also of this there is no pathological evidence.
Cheers,
Jill |
