For me only 2 suspects stand out...

[Wickerman]

Something has to give.


Maybe it was the Taxman.

All joking aside, back when I was a teenager it was George Harrison's double album, All Things Must Pass, that was on my turntable at home while I immersed my self in all the available JtR books.
I had them all (Except William Stewarts book) and read them over and over while listening to, What is Life, Beware of Darkness, The Ballad of Sir Frankie Crisp, Behind that locked door, Art of Dying....etc.

[GUT]

All joking aside, back when I was a teenager it was George Harrison's double album, All Things Must Pass, that was on my turntable at home while I immersed my self in all the available JtR books.
I had them all (Except William Stewarts book) and read them over and over while listening to, What is Life, Beware of Darkness, The Ballad of Sir Frankie Crisp, Behind that locked door, Art of Dying....etc.

Show's you're a man of taste

[Barnaby]

Who is this Ringo? Is this related to Chapman's missing rings?

[GUT]

Who is this Ringo? Is this related to Chapman's missing rings?

He was a Starr

[eighty-eighter]

Happy New year! You're thinking of Hutchinson, I'm sure. If you're interested in his post-1888 career, there's an excellent in-depth article on the subject in the October issue of "Ripperologist" (issue #146). Best wishes!

Yes of course, my bad.

[eighty-eighter]

Hi 88er
I think both are viable candidates and are actually very similar in their circumstances but I give the nod to Hutch.
Mainly because of his stalking behavior and because he knew mary Kelly and where she lived and was one of the last people to see her alive.

Neither have alibis for the other murders including McKenzie in 1889. Not only that but there is a growing idea that the torso victims were also killed by the ripper. Especially torso victim Elizabeth Jackson, who had flaps of skin removed from her abdomen in an uncanny similarity to Kelly and Chapman. Both men have no alibis and were still in the area for not only her murder but also the Pinchon Street torso victim, which was the last.

Coincidently, a recent article in ripperology points to a new discovery that a George Hutchinson left London for Australia shortly after the Pinchon torso was discovered and was later charged with a sex crime there. I think there is good chance this is the same hutch and he matches well with the ripper also.

IMHO the two least weak suspects are hutch and blotchy, with handful of others, including lech further down the possibility scale.

Very interesting reply, thanks for that. And if I've implicated an innocent man called George Harrison into being JtR my apologies - I put that blooper down to too many late nights (no not skulking around Whitechapel either).

[Harry D]

If the man Sarah Lewis witnessed was George Hutchinson, and his version of events seems to corroborate that, then he would definitely take precedent over Lechmere, since:
* He allegedly knew the victim (many theorize that MJK's killer was known to her).
* He was staking out the crime scene.
* He didn't come forward until AFTER the inquest.
* He came up with an implausible suspect description.

That doesn't mean he was anything more than a chancer, though.

As for Lechmere, like most Ripper suspects, if you go in with the preconception that he was the Ripper chances are you won't be disappointed as any kind of discrepancy can be construed as suspicious behaviour. However, if you look at him with a keen and critical eye, the house of cards comes tumbling down. First of all, was Lechmere anywhere he wasn't supposed to be that morning? Nope, Buck's Row was part of his work route and therefore nothing out of the ordinary. If Lechmere had taken a detour it would be a different story. Lechmere's supposed mendacity with PC Mizen or the "Mizen scam" as it's known could've easily been a misunderstanding between the pair of them. There's no reason to jump to the conclusion that Lechmere was deliberately lying unless you need him to be for your own purposes.

Do you think a gainfully-employed family man can slaughter women one Autumn and resume a normal life until dying of old age? Do you think the demons that compelled him to butcher Mary Kelly simply abated? Is there anything to link him to any non-canonical murders?

Yeah, he gave his father's stepfather's surname. So what? That in and of itself does not indicate anything. If Lechmere had really wanted to conceal his identity, he wouldn't have offered up his workplace, his home address, or a surname that could be connected to him. It just doesn't make sense.

[eighty-eighter]

I hear what you're saying Harry, but you can't completely exonerate somebody who was found standing beside a VERY recently slain body and then goes on to confuse matters further with his (rather odd to say the least) inter-action with the police that very same morning - not completely, especially without knowing more about him.

TBH whether he was a family man or not doesn't really have much bearing on matters, I'm sure all serial killers didn't give the appearance of depraved loonies, in actual fact many were very intelligent men indeed; able to almost live two separate lives - one open and the second very much hidden. It could have been that the Kelly charnel house finally sated him, and when he did feel the need to resume, presuming he did, then he did so in a very different way and somewhere else. I admit this is the weakest factor in the Lechmere theory - why he stopped. But there could be something we don't know about such as an unknown mental illness that faded, or even peer pressure from somebody who maybe suspected him, or it could just have been that he suspected that the authorities were on to him for some reason.

I'm convinced that JtR lived and worked in the Whitechapel, locale, or very close indeed. Both HUTCHINSON ( ) and Lechmere fit that bill, hence aside from A. Nother, they are my 2 top suspects.

Just out of interest did Lechmere have any cast iron alibi's for the other murder dates/times? I should probably ask that on the Lechmere thread really.

But if I was forced to choose one prime suspect, then I agree it's HUTCHINSON.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: If the man Sarah Lewis witnessed was George Hutchinson, and his version of events seems to corroborate that, then he would definitely take precedent over Lechmere, since:
* He allegedly knew the victim (many theorize that MJK's killer was known to her).
* He was staking out the crime scene.
* He didn't come forward until AFTER the inquest.
* He came up with an implausible suspect description.

1. How many of their victims did Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgway, Andrei Chikatilo, Jerry Brudos etcetera, know beforehand?
2. WHich we know for one reason only - he came forward himself and told us that he watched the court, waiting for Mary to come back out. Which is a bit different from "staking out a crime scene".
3. How is it suspicious to come forward after an inquest? What further risks would he have run if he went to the inquest? That Lewis may have pointed him out - a woman who saw nothing at all of his features?
Is it not true, that if there was any surmising at all on account of Abberline that Hutcginson was the loiterer, that Abberline would have presented the pair to each other? It seems he did not - and guess what...?
4. He came up with a description that would have been much harder to impress on Abberline than any more middle-of-the-road average Joe description, so it would seem he was not trying to con the police. If he had been the loiterer, and if he wanted to conjure up a stroy, it would be far more credibe that Abberline would swallow it WITHOUT Astrakhan man.

That doesn't mean he was anything more than a chancer, though.

To some it does. I don´t belong to that tally. I think Hutchinson mistook the dates, as per Dew.

As for Lechmere, like most Ripper suspects, if you go in with the preconception that he was the Ripper chances are you won't be disappointed as any kind of discrepancy can be construed as suspicious behaviour.

Why would anybody go in with a preconception? I, for my part, have researched the man and what happened on the night in question. Only then did I arrive at the conclusion that he is the prime suspect. I spent more thn twenty years with no suspect at all. So much for preconceptions. I find that preconceptions are far more prevalent anmongst thosw who choose a suspect who cannot be proven to have been anywhere near any of the nurder sites. Like, say, Bury.

However, if you look at him with a keen and critical eye, the house of cards comes tumbling down.

No, it does not.

First of all, was Lechmere anywhere he wasn't supposed to be that morning? Nope, Buck's Row was part of his work route and therefore nothing out of the ordinary. If Lechmere had taken a detour it would be a different story.

Maybe he did take a detour - he was much later in Bucks Row than he should have been. And from what fairytale have you gathered the news that people will not kill along routes they normally travel..?

Lechmere's supposed mendacity with PC Mizen or the "Mizen scam" as it's known could've easily been a misunderstanding between the pair of them.

A consequence analysis tells us that Mizen was almost certainly lied to.

There's no reason to jump to the conclusion that Lechmere was deliberately lying unless you need him to be for your own purposes.

Or unless a consequence analysis tells you that this was so.

Do you think a gainfully-employed family man can slaughter women one Autumn and resume a normal life until dying of old age?

And the evidence that he never killed again is...? The evidence that he did resume a normal life is...?

Do you think the demons that compelled him to butcher Mary Kelly simply abated?

And the evidence that he stopped killing is...?

Is there anything to link him to any non-canonical murders?

Yes, there is. However, I will not tell you which murders I am speaking of. But there are a number of links pointing to him committing more murders.

Yeah, he gave his father's stepfather's surname. So what?

Considering we have on record how he always otherwise used the name Lechmere in contacts with authorities, "so what" may be the most disingeuous thing anybody has said on this thread for quite some time.

That in and of itself does not indicate anything.

Yes, it very clearly indicates that he withheld his real name.

If Lechmere had really wanted to conceal his identity, he wouldn't have offered up his workplace, his home address, or a surname that could be connected to him. It just doesn't make sense.

If he wanted to stay incognito to those who knew him, but as honest as possible to the police, should they investigate him, that is precisely what he would do.

[Fisherman]

Just out of interest did Lechmere have any cast iron alibi's for the other murder dates/times? I should probably ask that on the Lechmere thread really.

He has no alibi that we know of for any one of the murders. They all occurred along his logical working routes at removes in time that seemingly tally more or less with the time when he went to work. The exceptions are Stride, who was killed two blocks from his mother´s lodgings in Mary Ann Street, and Eddowes who was killed in Mitre Square. If the killer was the same, then it seems that he followed Charles Lechmere´s old working route to Pickfords from James Street.

[Abby Normal]

I hear what you're saying Harry, but you can't completely exonerate somebody who was found standing beside a VERY recently slain body and then goes on to confuse matters further with his (rather odd to say the least) inter-action with the police that very same morning - not completely, especially without knowing more about him.

TBH whether he was a family man or not doesn't really have much bearing on matters, I'm sure all serial killers didn't give the appearance of depraved loonies, in actual fact many were very intelligent men indeed; able to almost live two separate lives - one open and the second very much hidden. It could have been that the Kelly charnel house finally sated him, and when he did feel the need to resume, presuming he did, then he did so in a very different way and somewhere else. I admit this is the weakest factor in the Lechmere theory - why he stopped. But there could be something we don't know about such as an unknown mental illness that faded, or even peer pressure from somebody who maybe suspected him, or it could just have been that he suspected that the authorities were on to him for some reason.

I'm convinced that JtR lived and worked in the Whitechapel, locale, or very close indeed. Both HUTCHINSON ( ) and Lechmere fit that bill, hence aside from A. Nother, they are my 2 top suspects.

Just out of interest did Lechmere have any cast iron alibi's for the other murder dates/times? I should probably ask that on the Lechmere thread really.

<script id="gpt-impl-0.9011273605777326" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_78.js"></script>But if I was forced to choose one prime suspect, then I agree it's HUTCHINSON.

Hi 88er
I know we have no idea who he is, but if hutch was not the killer, then Blotchy has to be the next best fit. He was the last credible suspect seen with Mary entering her room. He never came forward, was never seen to leave, was a local Joe and fit several witness descriptions.
It seems Mary knew her killer, and her behavior with him seems to indicate that they were familiar with each other. She also didn't seem to be inclined to be heading out again that night.

Also, I wouldn't rule out Chapman, Kosminski, Kelly or bury either, although after Hutch and Blotchy they fall down the list considerably IMHO.

[Abby Normal]

If the man Sarah Lewis witnessed was George Hutchinson, and his version of events seems to corroborate that, then he would definitely take precedent over Lechmere, since:
* He allegedly knew the victim (many theorize that MJK's killer was known to her).
* He was staking out the crime scene.
* He didn't come forward until AFTER the inquest.
* He came up with an implausible suspect description.

That doesn't mean he was anything more than a chancer, though.

As for Lechmere, like most Ripper suspects, if you go in with the preconception that he was the Ripper chances are you won't be disappointed as any kind of discrepancy can be construed as suspicious behaviour. However, if you look at him with a keen and critical eye, the house of cards comes tumbling down. First of all, was Lechmere anywhere he wasn't supposed to be that morning? Nope, Buck's Row was part of his work route and therefore nothing out of the ordinary. If Lechmere had taken a detour it would be a different story. Lechmere's supposed mendacity with PC Mizen or the "Mizen scam" as it's known could've easily been a misunderstanding between the pair of them. There's no reason to jump to the conclusion that Lechmere was deliberately lying unless you need him to be for your own purposes.

Do you think a gainfully-employed family man can slaughter women one Autumn and resume a normal life until dying of old age? Do you think the demons that compelled him to butcher Mary Kelly simply abated? Is there anything to link him to any non-canonical murders?

Yeah, he gave his father's stepfather's surname. So what? That in and of itself does not indicate anything. If Lechmere had really wanted to conceal his identity, he wouldn't have offered up his workplace, his home address, or a surname that could be connected to him. It just doesn't make sense.

Hi 88 er and Harry
I do agree with you that Hutch is the best bet.
However, re the family man argument-Many, many serial killers have had apparently normal family lives, and some do simply stop for whatever reason.

And you have to admit-eventhough the lech discrepencies can have innocent explanations, the red flags are there nonetheless, and have to be explained away. I could see one or two, but Lech has several and they add up.which is more than you can say for most suspects.

he also seems to have many other circs surrounding him, which fish and poster Lechmere have put forth through lots of good research, which point in his direction.

One fascinating development is the idea of the torso man and the ripper being the same, which I am now leaning toward, and lech fits that bill nicely too. as does hutch.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I know you're not talking to me at the moment, but why can't you just be grateful that the original poster agrees with you that Crossmere is a promising suspect? I think he's a much weaker one than Hutchinson, and I'm far from alone in that opinion, but that hardly invalidates your evidently successful efforts to put him "on the map".

In response to Harry D's sensible post, touching on Hutchinson's alleged acquaintance with Kelly, you cited Gary Ridgway as an example of a serial killer who didn't know any of his victims. This is not the case, as John Douglas makes clear:

"...We indicated the UNSUB would inject himself into the investigation. Ridgway did so by providing information about one of the victims, whom he knew. That victim was killed differently than the others. A bag was placed over her head, an empty wine bottle and a pair of dead fish placed on her body. My analysis to police was that the killer knew this victim due to how the killer posed her after death. Ridgway came forward to “volunteer” information on this one because I'm sure he was afraid police would come across his name during the investigation.

It was his own proactive technique."

Gary Ridgway came forward as a witness or informant because he knew the victim (whose body was posed differently to the others) and feared an incriminating link. If Hutchinson was the murderer, it is entirely possible that he was motivated into coming forward out of similar concerns.

To address some of the other objections.

- Hutchinson could not have known that Sarah Lewis had seen "nothing at all of his features". If had been following the Eddowes inquest, he would have been aware that Lawende's full description of his Church Passage man (including "features") had been deliberately suppressed, and that were was, accordingly, a risk of the same thing happening with Lewis's description.

- Hutchinson specifically cited the unusual appearance of the man to justify his sustained interest in the couple and subsequent 45-minute vigil outside her home. Replace that usual appearance with a "middle-of-the-road average Joe description", and that justification - that whole excuse for being stationed where he was witnessed by Lewis - disappears.

All the best,
Ben

[John Wheat]

I still think Hutchinson and Lechmere were both witnesses and nothing more. The police at the time treated them as witnesses and unless your going to pontificate that the police of 1888 were totally incompetent then I see no reason to treat them as anything other than witnesses.

[eighty-eighter]

He has no alibi that we know of for any one of the murders. They all occurred along his logical working routes at removes in time that seemingly tally more or less with the time when he went to work. The exceptions are Stride, who was killed two blocks from his mother´s lodgings in Mary Ann Street, and Eddowes who was killed in Mitre Square. If the killer was the same, then it seems that he followed Charles Lechmere´s old working route to Pickfords from James Street.

Very interesting Fisherman.