Ripper Victims?

[Tom_Wescott]

Crosskey & Hutch

Well, my Charlie could beat up Lechmere's Charlie any day. He could certainly take those pansy nelly boys, Tumblety and Druitt, and could whoop Kosminski with one hand behind his back, which would only be fair cuz Koz would only have one hand available, what with his solitary vice and all.

I don't follow the many Hutch threads, so I don't know what kind of abuse our friend (who is no mere Lech, I like to say) has been heaping on you, but what he posted above isn't far off. I've always said that out of all the non-police suspects, the only viable one is Hutch. But for every point you could argue in favor of him being the Ripper, there's at least five that argue against that conclusion.

As for Charles Cross, I don't like to get my facts piecemeal, so it would be great if Lech would prepare a dissertation on him, if he's so inclined.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

As for Charles Cross, I don't like to get my facts piecemeal, so it would be great if Lech would prepare a dissertation on him, if he's so inclined

Absolutely. This would interest me too, Tom.

As I said, such a dissertation would be so much more compelling than a misguided attempt by a Cross-interested party to "remove" an inconvenient (to them) suspect.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

I haven’t argued for Cross persistently or in any massive detail. The few times that he has come up (and I don’t think I have ever initiated any such discussion) I have thrown a few points up in his ‘favour’ and as far as I am aware no one has really commented further or picked me up on those extra issues. So there really haven’t been any arguments in which I could fail to give an inch. I think I have actually pointed out a few potential flaws in the Cross case.
Most arguments against him revolve around presumptions of what someone caught in the act would or wouldn’t have done. This is obviously a very subjective area of discussion and as such one I haven’t really gone into.

Of course I can chose to look at other suspects – e.g. Hutchinson – as I wish, even if in doing so it discomforts his proponents. Many aspects of the case interest me – although equally many other aspects that obsess some people make me roll my eyes (not Hutchinson actually) and wonder what planet some people are on.
Something more substantial about Cross is in preparation though. In the mean time I can only offer tit-bits.
I look forward to reading the full Charles Le Grand story as well then we will see which Charlie would win in a straightener.

[Malcolm X]

That post mortem sounds a lot like that of Mary Jane Kelly. Also the one of Catherine Eddowes.

yes indeed, but she's not mutilated enough to arouse my suspicion, this of course doesn't mean that it isn't JTR.

the torsos look like this primarily because the killer is trying to hide their identities/ make the remains easier to transport, the head isn't removed as a trophy like a kidney etc. her head could be buried 5 miles away.

a torso is found about once in every 5 years; here in the U.K, so it's a very common way of hiding a ``domestic murder``, JTR is far more likely to have killed Mackenzie/ Coles etc

[Malcolm X]

Ah – I think Hutchinson was almost certainly Toppy and I don’t think it at all likely that Toppy did it.
But it is an interesting sub topic – well I find it interesting anyway.

I find the arguments put forward in support of Hutchinson as the culprit in some cases interesting and in others wholly unrealistic.
Hutchinson is a glaring example of how people in this area of study can lose their reason by arguing in the most ridiculous and overblown manner – refusing to concede an inch when the point of argument is blatantly and obviously against them.
People who I suspect are quite rational and able to behave in an intelligent and informed manner in ‘normal life’ are quite capable of going completely over the top.
Of course Hutchinson is not the only instance of this in the world of Jack the Ripper.

I still favour Charlie – he used to live in Pinchin Street when it was called Thomas Street in 1861 – the one and only time he was ever called Cross. And strangely his dear mama lived there with her third husband and one of Charlie’s daughters in 1881.
By 1889 they were living just under the railway arch on Cable Street. To bring us back to the torsos.
Husband number 3 died a few months after the torso was discovered.

DONT BE SILLY, Hutchinson is probably the strongest suspect of all, his statement matches a killer that's inserted himself into this case almost perfectly, it also looks like the statement of a stalker.

The problem you have is that you have not identified the right GH, this TOPPY looks as if he's pretented to be GH years later

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lech. I think the best way to solve the case is to do the celebrity death match. Put all the suspects in the ring, or in a street brawl. Everyone would put their money behind Le Grand. Of course, he's crooked as an S, so we could pay him to take a dive against Cross, the dark horse, and you and I would get rich. This is starting to sound good.

Malcolm,

Hutchinson might very well have 'inserted himself' into the investigation with a false tale. Or he might not have. We know that the false witness Violenia did for sure, but no one suggests he murdered any body. We also have Elizabeth Watts in the Stride case, holding up the investigation with her nonsense. But you're right, the only reason modern theorists have focused so hard on Hutch is that he seems to be telling a tale that might not be true. Aside from that, what makes him so suspicious? Clearly not his subsequent life. I like Le Grand because he inserted himself strongly into the investigation, either inventing false evidence (Packer, 'From hell' letter) or making mountains out of molehills (Batty Street). Unlike Hutch, It was proven in court that Le Grand stalked people, and he admitted to as much himself, plus there's a history of abusing prostitutes, he had not just a house but offices and probably an East End bolthole. On and on and on. So, if the Hutch folks are looking for someone suspiciously inserting themselves into the investigation, you can do a lot better than Hutch. But I understand that old habits die hard.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Malcolm X]

Well, my Charlie could beat up Lechmere's Charlie any day. He could certainly take those pansy nelly boys, Tumblety and Druitt, and could whoop Kosminski with one hand behind his back, which would only be fair cuz Koz would only have one hand available, what with his solitary vice and all.

I don't follow the many Hutch threads, so I don't know what kind of abuse our friend (who is no mere Lech, I like to say) has been heaping on you, but what he posted above isn't far off. I've always said that out of all the non-police suspects, the only viable one is Hutch. But for every point you could argue in favor of him being the Ripper, there's at least five that argue against that conclusion.

As for Charles Cross, I don't like to get my facts piecemeal, so it would be great if Lech would prepare a dissertation on him, if he's so inclined.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

GH was either there and innocent, or he's JTR, he did not make it all up, because there's far too much stuff that points to him being there...unfortunately he didn't do a very good job of disguising the stalker in him, he thus looks very guilty indeed.

in neither of these scenarios, is there any room for LE GRAND to fit in, because i'll mention this very briefly, you can not stalk outside MJKs from 3am to 4am and then risk breaking in.

if GH was part of a dastardly duo, then he would not have gone to Abberline.

PLUS, there is absolutely no need for JTR to go to the police... AT ALL, i used to think there was because he was seen outside, but not now, he was either there as he said, or inserting himself into this case as JTR.

this was GH acting on his own, it's the next stage on from an ``anti-semetic`` Eddowes.....but to make sure that he was seen outside Millers court, plus a few other things, he had to go to the inquest first...... because it is most important for him, THAT HE WAS SEEN OUTSIDE ......her killer can only be GH, LA DE DA or Blotchy face.

dont forget, that GH can only be convicted as JTR, if he left evidence lieing around, he didn't; he thus knew that he was safe, he can not be convicted for being caught out lieing/ talking a load of crap etc..... he can only be locked up for timewasting or as a reward seeking waste of space... well what !

but i do have to say that it's also 50:50 that he saw JTR too, if so, he almost definitely saw G.Chapman.

but the trouble with all of us is:- that we have a fav suspect that is very easy to vision in our minds as JTR, this comes to us after about 2 years of research, it completely clouds our judgement from then on... it doesn't matter how intelligent you are, because it's more about clear and rational thought, but this is abandoned when you favour a certain suspect, we all do it.

but at least i'm not into Kosminski, Druitt, royal conspiracy, FM etc.

of all our top suspects i'd say that G.Chapman is definitely the most evil and suspicious, all the others are either fitted up by the police/ fall guys, or just picked out of a hat like a ``Lucky dip`` contest.

[Malcolm X]

Hi Lech. I think the best way to solve the case is to do the celebrity death match. Put all the suspects in the ring, or in a street brawl. Everyone would put their money behind Le Grand. Of course, he's crooked as an S, so we could pay him to take a dive against Cross, the dark horse, and you and I would get rich. This is starting to sound good.

Malcolm,

Hutchinson might very well have 'inserted himself' into the investigation with a false tale. Or he might not have. We know that the false witness Violenia did for sure, but no one suggests he murdered any body. We also have Elizabeth Watts in the Stride case, holding up the investigation with her nonsense. But you're right, the only reason modern theorists have focused so hard on Hutch is that he seems to be telling a tale that might not be true. Aside from that, what makes him so suspicious? Clearly not his subsequent life. I like Le Grand because he inserted himself strongly into the investigation, either inventing false evidence (Packer, 'From hell' letter) or making mountains out of molehills (Batty Street). Unlike Hutch, It was proven in court that Le Grand stalked people, and he admitted to as much himself, plus there's a history of abusing prostitutes, he had not just a house but offices and probably an East End bolthole. On and on and on. So, if the Hutch folks are looking for someone suspiciously inserting themselves into the investigation, you can do a lot better than Hutch. But I understand that old habits die hard.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

yea but your suspect does not match the Eddowes suspect and he's very hard to fit into MJK too.

you need to place him with strong arguement into these last 2 murders, or you'll get ripped apart on this forum. because at the moment all you have is a violent street thug/ petty criminal, he has no convictions of murder or no hard connections to JTR...... many street thugs are excellent stalkers/ threaten the police/ prostitutes etc, so watch out for this, this is not evidence of guilt; in any way.

i agree that he's better than most suspects yes, but tends to weaken with regards to the last 2 murders.

finally, you really need to explain the death of MJK really well, because you have someone called GH standing in your way like a brick wall, you also have Blotchy Face to contend with as well, the death of MJK is a complicated mess and to be honest it needs its own website, thus; it's very hard for anyone to make a suspect fit this murder, it is not easy for you.... good luck !

[lynn cates]

boxing day

Hello Tom.

"I think the best way to solve the case is to do the celebrity death match. Put all the suspects in the ring, or in a street brawl. Everyone would put their money behind Le Grand."

Well, Le Grand had some really fancy footwork, but Kosminski had the best hands. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Malcolm X]

to me it's very important to know when MJK stopped singing, because this is evidence from her neighbours, that isn't tainted by all of this GH stuff.... it's therefore one of the few things that we might be able to rely on

but unfortunately around 1am isn't good enough for me, this is like i've just had my balls kicked right through my body and out of my mouth

this weakens GH quite a lot, when we get back to MJK next year, we are going to have to give this much thought, did he visit Millers court 3 times that night... bloody hell !

[Abby Normal]

I disagree with that. from Tabram to Kelly, the killer took more measures to delay finding the body and identifying. Eddowes' face was badly mutilated, but she was still identified quickly. Kelly's face was mutilated even worse, but she was identified too. if he had killed Kelly in a court or backyard, but with the same facial mutilations, she would not have been identified as quickly. and he could not have known that Kelly, a single prostitute living alone, would be found a matter of hours after her death. he may have reasonably expected that she wouldn't be found for days or weeks.

with Jackson, her head was taken away completely. fingerprints were not done at that time. so he was obviously trying to hide her identity better than he had done with Eddowes and Kelly (IF he was JTR). Jackson's killer could not have guessed that a homeless prostitute would be identified by her clothes.

we don't know where Jackson was taken from or how she died. she very well could have died by strangulation/throat cut. since her head specifically was not found, we have to assume it was either hidden to hide her identity or taken as a souvenir.

I don't think display and disposal was important for JTR, but became more important as the heat picked up. that much is shown in the progression from Tabram to Kelly. so, for me, Elizabeth Jackson COULD be a logical next step.

my opinion, after Kelly, I don't think we'd see another JTR victim that was stabbed/slashed and left in an open street or court. Kelly showed that he was forced to become more careful. and Jackson could show that he was becoming even moreso. after Kelly, he may have realized how risky it actually was to kill a person in the victim's residence....it may have allowed him time for more mutilation, but raised the risk of being caught with no escape route. with Jackson, he may have killed her at a residence, shed, barn, etc which would allow for escape and more mutilation.

again, I'm not saying I believe Jackson was or was not a JTR victim, only that she shouldn't be dismissed so quickly based on disposal of the body.

Hi Pontius
Interesting ideas.
My thoughts on the torso killings is that the killer(s) were trying to hide the victims identity but not neccesarily the act. If you are going to try to dispose the bodies so they would never be found and have gone to length of cutting up the bodies and disposing many parts in the river, why then leave some parts in the open, ie. Pincin street and in the new SY (?!). I think the killer wanted some parts to be found. Why? because he was a serial killer and along with getting off on murder and dismemberment he also got off knowing the body (parts) would be found and/or taunting the police/public. Therefor I dont think the Torso killings were abortions/experiments/burke and Hare or any medical/scientific motivated because then they would certainly have gone the extra inch and tried to TOTALLY hide ALL the body parts.

As for the Torso killer and JtR being the same I think its possible but not probable. However, if they were the same man, and I said before that perhaps the torso killings were victims the killer for whatever reason killed at home or his workshop and the dismemberment was for getting the body removed from his place and the other JtR murders were when he could not bring them to his place and so he killed them in the open.

And there are the similarities that they were the same type of victim, it happened in the same general area and time frame, they are all unsolved and there seems to be a degree of mutilation in all. Then of course there is the argument-what are the chances that two seperate serial killers are operating at the sametime/place, especially when serial killing is in its infancy in 1888 (unlike recently when it would not be so improbable)

It might be interesting to see a geographic profile that includes the victims of both the Torso and JtR murders.

[Malcolm X]

in a heavily built up area like London, it's not easy to transport whilst hiding from view, a whole body, especially if you live in a mid-terrace.

the killer also needs to get his murder victim well away from him and not to dump her in the basement, or hide her in the walls, it's therefore much easier to carve her up into small parcels.

G. Chapman chose to poison instead, maybe because torsos are still able to be identified, or dumping the body parts was simply too awkward for him.

the trouble with a torso is, if it is identified, the killer can only really be one of a few people, it is easy to eliminate this to just one person.

but you have to ask yourself this, why was JTR generating torso victims at home, why not simply lure his lovers out on the streets and kill them there, like a normal street murder and thus the killer could be anybody and this also has to apply to G.Chapman too.

maybe because this killer isn't JTR, i dont know !

i think at the very least, that JTR would have killed his lovers whatever, as per Liz Stride, because this is his natural M.O and so damned easy to do, TORSOS just dont seem like him at all.

[Tom_Wescott]

in neither of these scenarios, is there any room for LE GRAND to fit in, because i'll mention this very briefly, you can not stalk outside MJKs from 3am to 4am and then risk breaking in.

Le Grand was a professional, not an idiot. He would have had no reason to stand outside her room for an hour.

yea but your suspect does not match the Eddowes suspect and he's very hard to fit into MJK too.

Actually, he quite resembles one of the descriptions of Eddowes’ man, being only two or three inches taller than the description. As for Kelly, I don’t know what evidence you value or don’t, but Le Grand owned nice long coats and wore a watch and chain when he wanted to. Jack the Ripper took organs with him, therefore had a private place. Where was Hutch’s private place? Hmmm? And did Hutch go six miles out of his way daily to be in Whitechapel? No, he was already there. If you want to talk levels of suspicion, Hutch is about a 3 and Le Grand a 10. One could argue that Hutch killed Kelly, if they want to go for that ‘she was a copy cat’ nonsense, but it would be an uphill battle to call him JTR. Either he was a sidekick to the real killer, or he was an honest witness, or he lied to gain celebrity and carte blanche treatment from the police. Those are your three choices.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

Hmmm – I’m not altogether sure than an examination of his less than illustrious criminal career substantiates this statement:
Le Grand was a professional, not an idiot.

[Ben]

I agree with Malcolm here.

While it is often observed that eyewitness sightings count for little in terms of ruling suspects in or out, the cases for older and taller suspects must be predicated on an assumption that nobody saw the killer, and I personally find this very hard to take on board. Unless the witnesses in question were lying, Lawende's man was the probable killer of Eddowes, and Schwartz's broad-shouldered man was the probable killer of Stride. Any "suspect" who cannot realistically be described as average in height and around 30 does tend to suffer, credibility-wise, for this reason.

As for Le Grand-as-killer inserting himself into the investigation, there have indeed been instances of serial killers resorting to such tactics for the pure thrill of it, but I would suggest that the majority of "inserters" do so primarily for reasons of self-preservation; to lessen the value of potentially incriminating evidence, and I see fewer indications of this in Le Grand's case. John Eric Armstrong was a serial killer from Detroit who was observed by a witness at the scene of one of his crimes, and when he discovered this, he approached the police voluntarily with a crap excuse that appeared to validate his presence there; in this instance, he claimed to have "discovered" the body. Le Grand had no need, as far as I'm aware, to legitimize incriminating evidence that might lead to him, because there wasn't any.

The act of removing organs most assuredly did not necessitate a private dwelling, which were relatively rare in the district. The larger lodging houses in particular hosted foul-smelling kitchens with equally foul-smelling lodgers cooking up their meaty treats, and these kitchens were often situated below street level with doors that were not patrolled by deputies or night watchmen. Moreover, if the lodger had a private cubicle, he would have been shielded by four walls from prying eyes.

Living in the area in which the crimes are committed is indisputably a "pro" for the candidacy of a given suspect, by the way. Not a con.

I do think this suspect versus suspect business is getting a bit silly.