Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • AmericanSherlock
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Poor sweden : (

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    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......

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
    Did he ever use the name Lechmere when Cross senior was still alive, or the name Cross (other than in a context where he was already using it) after he'd died?
    He and his sister were Christened after his mother (Maria) had married Thomas Cross and the name Lechmere was recorded. Thomas Cross had only been dead a year or so, and Maria hadn't yet remarried, when CAL married using the name Lechmere in 1870.

    There are only two examples currently known where he used the name Cross after his stepfather had died. One was during the Nichols case and the other (which we can't be certain was him) was when the child was run over in 1876.

    He had been listed as Cross on the 1861 census. In theory, Thomas Cross, as head of the household was responsible for providing that info, but Maria may have had a hand in it. CAL was 11/12, so we can be reasonably confident that the use of Cross wasn't his idea.
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 06-23-2018, 09:09 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X