Favorite suspect/s?

[AmericanSherlock]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Abby Normal]

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.

[AmericanSherlock]

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)

[Abby Normal]

Poor sweden : (

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[MrBarnett]

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[MrBarnett]

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[MrBarnett]

Cheers Gary,

Fogarty appears to provide a plausible reason for Poll’s reticence when it came to the police and also it might explain her willingness to identify innocent soldiers as Martha’s killer.

If Foggy was only feigning blindness......

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

She remarried a man named Joseph Forsdike and as far as I know used that name until she died.

Maybe he didn’t like his mother remarrying and so he made a point of calling himself Cross in protest?

The only thing that I feel confident in is that he gained no advantage by calling himself Cross so I see no sinister motive. Nonetheless it’s still interesting to know why he used Cross as we cannot prove that he used it in everyday life (though I’ve always felt it likely.) If we could prove that ‘accident man’ and ‘witness man’ were one and the same then we would have our answer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Michael,

I drafted a long, waffly response to this and it disappeared.

Probably just as well😉

The short answer is there's been some interest but I'm not aware anything has been put together by anyone.

Gary

Cheers Gary,

Fogarty appears to provide a plausible reason for Poll’s reticence when it came to the police and also it might explain her willingness to identify innocent soldiers as Martha’s killer.

If Foggy was only feigning blindness......