Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    What I should make clear here is that there is no definitive proof that Poll and Foggy were an item in 1888. But we do know they both frequented NE Passsge and the St Geo E workhouse/infirmary in the 1880s. They were living together in NEP in mid-1893, alongside 2/3 other prostitutes. They married in December that year and within a very short time Poll was back in the infirmary being treated for the clap.

    Ed Stow (remember him?) has questioned whether Fogarty was actually blind. His 1906 Hellingly notes state that he was completely blind. How much of a hindrance would that have been on the dark GYB landing, I wonder?
    Am I remembering correctly Gary that we don’t know the cause of Foggy’s blindness? From what I recall of his photograph there didn’t appear to be any scarring around his eyes which might have pointed at some kind of accident or explosion (perhaps during military service?) I suppose that we have no way of knowing if his blindness was degenerative and so if he was completely blind in 1906 could he have been, in todays terms, partially sighted in 1888?

    Wouldn’t that be an interesting development? I agree though that the frenzied stabbing of Martha Tabram surely wouldn’t have been beyond the capability of a blind man. If he could negotiate the north face of Pearly Poll unscathed.
    Regards

    Herlock






    "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      Am I remembering correctly Gary that we don’t know the cause of Foggy’s blindness? From what I recall of his photograph there didn’t appear to be any scarring around his eyes which might have pointed at some kind of accident or explosion (perhaps during military service?) I suppose that we have no way of knowing if his blindness was degenerative and so if he was completely blind in 1906 could he have been, in todays terms, partially sighted in 1888?

      Wouldn’t that be an interesting development? I agree though that the frenzied stabbing of Martha Tabram surely wouldn’t have been beyond the capability of a blind man. If he could negotiate the north face of Pearly Poll unscathed.
      Yes, we don't know how or when he became blind, but he claimed to have been in the army and as a teenager he broke into a sugar refinery and stole a 'titler' of sugar, which suggests the problem wasn't congenital. Looking at his photo, I detect a swelling on his left cheek which may be the result of an old injury. What do you think?

      That sugar 'titler' was stolen from Martineau's refinery in 1871, and his committal to Claybury three decades later was made by a member of the Martineau family - revenge served very cold, or karma?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
        Yes, we don't know how or when he became blind, but he claimed to have been in the army and as a teenager he broke into a sugar refinery and stole a 'titler' of sugar, which suggests the problem wasn't congenital. Looking at his photo, I detect a swelling on his left cheek which may be the result of an old injury. What do you think?

        That sugar 'titler' was stolen from Martineau's refinery in 1871, and his committal to Claybury three decades later was made by a member of the Martineau family - revenge served very cold, or karma?
        It took me a while to track down that photograph of Foggy (is it me or is the Forum running slowly?) I remember that left cheek now. You could be right there Gary it certainly looks different to the right cheek so perhaps there was some kind of injury that might have caused his blindness. I suppose that it still doesn’t eliminate the “possibilty’ that he may not have gone totally blind straight away? Its interesting to speculate though.
        Regards

        Herlock






        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

        Comment


        • You could have told me that there was photo of Foggy on here. I didn’t even know that there was a Foggy thread.
          Regards

          Herlock






          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            You could have told me that there was photo of Foggy on here. I didn’t even know that there was a Foggy thread.
            Michael,

            There's a photo of Foggy on Casebook - on the Pearly Poll's Husband thread.

            (Better late than never?)

            Did you see the Sweden/Germany match? I was rooting for Sweden. I hope Fish isn't too grumpy when he returns to the fold.

            Gary

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
              Michael,

              There's a photo of Foggy on Casebook - on the Pearly Poll's Husband thread.

              (Better late than never?)

              Did you see the Sweden/Germany match? I was rooting for Sweden. I hope Fish isn't too grumpy when he returns to the fold.

              Gary
              Thanks for that info Gary

              I’m afraid that Fish is always grumpy where I’m concerned.

              Sweden were certainly unlucky though. I wouldn’t bet against Germany winning it now even though they’ve been poor so far. They can only get better.
              Regards

              Herlock






              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

              Comment


              • Poor sweden : (
                "Is all that we see or seem
                but a dream within a dream?"

                -Edgar Allan Poe


                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                -Frederick G. Abberline

                Comment


                • Rooting for Portugal myself

                  Even though, I doubt the Ripper is one of the known suspects, I had said Druitt and Kosminski seemed the most plausible to me. Even if he wasn't one of these 2, I would guess he would be something "very much like" one or the other.

                  Do others here think the psychological profile of JTR would be more likely to suit :

                  1. someone like MJD, a seemingly normal, handsome barrister type with a history of familial mental illness and personal/professional problems under the surface or

                  2. an obviously mentally ill madman like Kosminski who couldn't even contrive a normal appearance or hold down a job and descended into maniacal bloodlust?

                  I think a key to this is to figure out how "lucky" the killer got?

                  Was his not being apprehended just a matter of chance or was there clever planning involved?

                  If there was it might indicate someone of intelligence. (lean towards Druitt type)

                  If it was just mostly luck then I'd lean towards a maniac because of the nature of the crime. (probably Kosminski type)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
                    Rooting for Portugal myself

                    Even though, I doubt the Ripper is one of the known suspects, I had said Druitt and Kosminski seemed the most plausible to me. Even if he wasn't one of these 2, I would guess he would be something "very much like" one or the other.

                    Do others here think the psychological profile of JTR would be more likely to suit :

                    1. someone like MJD, a seemingly normal, handsome barrister type with a history of familial mental illness and personal/professional problems under the surface or

                    2. an obviously mentally ill madman like Kosminski who couldn't even contrive a normal appearance or hold down a job and descended into maniacal bloodlust?

                    I think a key to this is to figure out how "lucky" the killer got?

                    Was his not being apprehended just a matter of chance or was there clever planning involved?

                    If there was it might indicate someone of intelligence. (lean towards Druitt type)

                    If it was just mostly luck then I'd lean towards a maniac because of the nature of the crime. (probably Kosminski type)
                    Hi AS
                    Neither IMHO. I think he was alot like other serial killers who preyed on prostitutes throughout history- local, knew the scene/area, same class or slightly above as victims. Amd same as many post mortem serial killers. Above average intelligence, street smart. Very crafty in eluding detection during crimes and capture afterwards.

                    Appearance would be average joe, had job, maybe a wife.


                    And he was definitely lucky, but smart people usually make alot of it.
                    "Is all that we see or seem
                    but a dream within a dream?"

                    -Edgar Allan Poe


                    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                    -Frederick G. Abberline

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      Paul, by all accounts. Except yours, and you weren't there.
                      Just saw this. No, Paul was NOT with Lechmere as he found the body. He arrived after that and found Lechmere standing in the street, not far from the body.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Just saw this. No, Paul was NOT with Lechmere as he found the body. He arrived after that and found Lechmere standing in the street, not far from the body.
                        Wrong - Cross had only seen what might have been a woman lying on the pavement at that point. The two of them then walked across to it and found the body together.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                          Hi AS
                          Neither IMHO. I think he was alot like other serial killers who preyed on prostitutes throughout history- local, knew the scene/area, same class or slightly above as victims. Amd same as many post mortem serial killers. Above average intelligence, street smart. Very crafty in eluding detection during crimes and capture afterwards.

                          Appearance would be average joe, had job, maybe a wife.


                          And he was definitely lucky, but smart people usually make alot of it.
                          Abby, interesting thoughts, thanks.

                          Serial killers often seem just like anyone else and he might have been seemingly unremarkable in every way. I would agree that unless he had an unusual amount of luck, he was probably on the rather intelligent side of the variety that made some of his own good luck.

                          I think because the killings stopped, this leads some to believe he either died or was incarcerated shortly after.

                          It is also possible as you suggest that he simply evaded capture and his bloodlust was satiated. I think some undermine this possibility, which seems perfectly plausible, if not likely to me.

                          MJK's murder was particularly gruesome and elaborate and the killer had the benefit of privacy. Perhaps there was a catharsis and level of psychosexual gratification achieved here that allowed the Ripper to "retire" or at lease only commit more minor assaults.
                          Last edited by AmericanSherlock; 06-26-2018, 11:56 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
                            Abby, interesting thoughts, thanks.

                            Serial killers often seem just like anyone else and he might have been seemingly unremarkable in every way. I would agree that unless he had an unusual amount of luck, he was probably on the rather intelligent side of the variety that made some of his own good luck.

                            I think because the killings stopped, this leads some to believe he either died or was incarcerated shortly after.

                            It is also possible as you suggest that he simply evaded capture and his bloodlust was satiated. I think some undermine this possibility, which seems perfectly plausible, if not likely to me.

                            MJK's murder was particularly gruesome and elaborate and the killer had the benefit of privacy. Perhaps there was a catharsis and level of psychosexual gratification achieved here that allowed the Ripper to "retire" or at lease only commit more minor assaults.
                            Hi AS

                            Yes its a conundrum for sure. What happened to him? Its like zodiac almost. Unsolved. But the zodiac continued to write letters long after his last kill.
                            The golden state killer apparently just stopped and went on to lead a normal life.
                            Kemper turned himself in.

                            Im starting to lean toward, whatever reason, the ripper stopped after mcKenzie.
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                              Hi Caz,

                              Why so?

                              The Ripper existed, and we can be reasonably confident that he left a record of his existence that is available to us today. But why should that record be so overwhelmingly damning that if presented it would convince everyone?

                              Take my POI Thomas Fogarty. He was Pearly Poll's husband, spent most of his life in the East End where he lived among prostitutes and in doss houses. He was described as a 'vicious blind beggar' after he assaulted a young girl on the Commercial Road. He had numerous convictions for theft, assault and criminal damage.

                              Although blind, he was occasionally described as a wood carver, an occupation requiring the use of sharp implements, which a homeless man would have presumably carried on his person.

                              Shortly after his marriage to Poll, she was admitted to the ST Geo E infirmary suffering from syphilis. After she died in 1895, Fogarty spent increasingly more time in the ST Geo E workhouse/infirmary, ultimately being diagnosed with 'mania' and sent to Claybury Asylum in Essex. After five years there he was transferred to the East Sussex County Asylum, Hellingly in early 1907. When he first arrived at Hellingly he was described as being 'excitable' and interfering with other patients, but he gradually became more apathetic and his physical health deteriorated. He died at Hellingly six months after arriving there.

                              That's the basic bio, there's a fair bit more on the Thomas Foggerty thread at How's gaff.
                              http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....ogarty&page=40

                              I'm sure everyone is aware of how problematic a witness Pearly Poll was. Tom Wescott covers her performance during the Tabram investigation and inquest in detail in The Bank Holiday Murders. The impression I got when reading the book was that Tom believed Poll was an agent of a grand conspiracy involving the 'Lords of Spitalfields', William Thick and other more shadowy figures. That never sat well with me and given the binary choice between Poll being that kind of agent or a ditzy, alcoholic tart, I'd plump for the ditz. But if there's a third option, that she was coerced into leading the police astray by a violent partner, that would seem equally plausible, if not more so.

                              One last thing. It was reported that on the morning of Annie Chapman's death a blind man of 'ungovernable temper' carried out a vicious daylight knife attack on his female guide near Spitalfields Market. He was eventually overpowered and disarmed by the crowd and his victim was taken first to Commercial Street Police station where she was seen by the police surgeon and then to the London Hospital. The story was covered by a few papers, but the details, including the names of the attacker and his victim have not yet been discovered. There may have been more than one vicious blind beggar in the East End at the time, but not too many I wouldn't have thought.

                              Even if we could show Fogarty committed the attack, the evidence for his having murdered Tabram wouldn't be overwhelming. But if I was investigating the case at the time and had all this info at my disposal, I'd pull him in for questioning tout suite.

                              Edit: I forgot to mention that between his early prison terms and winding up blind in NE Passage Foggy (as I like to call him) was in the army. Now, what's the name of the sharp thing soldiers stick on the end of their rifles? Ah, yes, that's it - a bayonet...
                              Hi Gary,

                              Apologies for the delay in responding.

                              I wasn't suggesting it was pointless to research anyone considered a potential person of interest, due to their known movements and/or behaviour. Far from it! Who knows what might come to light to turn one, out of the hundreds of names, into a major suspect in his own right?

                              But for me, right now, none of the names I've read about sticks out from the crowd enough to make me think yes, I'd put a fiver on it being him.

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                                Hi Gary,

                                Apologies for the delay in responding.

                                I wasn't suggesting it was pointless to research anyone considered a potential person of interest, due to their known movements and/or behaviour. Far from it! Who knows what might come to light to turn one, out of the hundreds of names, into a major suspect in his own right?

                                But for me, right now, none of the names I've read about sticks out from the crowd enough to make me think yes, I'd put a fiver on it being him.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                Hi Caz,

                                No worries.

                                I'm with you there, though if I could be sure that Foggy was the blind beggar with the 'ungovernable temper' who repeatedly stabbed his guide in broad daylight and I could be sure that he and Poll were an item in 1888, I might be prepared to risk a fiver that he was Tabram's killer.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X