Who are the mostly likely suspects?

[Malcolm X]

Hello Malcolm.

"the only thing wrong with Blotchy, is that he doesn't leave anything anti- semitic at the murder scene.... because if JTR did at Ghoulston st, then he would have at Millers court as well."

And, by parity of reasoning, perhaps Buck's Row and Hanbury?

Cheers.
LC

no, because he started his anti-semetic rubbish at Dutfields only, but he didn't bother with regards to MJK ........ you only see this from GH and no other top suspect !

GH carried on what JTR started a month earlier...............Blotchy Face did not.

now 2 + 2 = 4 doesn't it.

[DVV]

Aside from Kosminski (who's a stretch), and Druitt (if one connects dots and makes a mountain out of a molehill) and Kelly (though there is no evidence), we have no one who takes less than a herculean effort to make into a serial killer.

Mike

It sure needs a herculean effort to agree with this post. I fail to see what makes Druitt and Kosminski possible serial killers more than other suspects.

[The Good Michael]

Hello Michael. Then why not leave "serial killer" out?

Lynn,

Why not indeed. Call me naive, but I can't see 5 or 6 copycats running around, nor can I see what was done to Kelly as being a one off. These things are possible, but in my attempts at reasoning out such things, I'm finding no easy answers.

Mike

[DVV]

no, because he started his anti-semetic rubbish at Dutfields only, but he didn't bother with regards to MJK ........ you only see this from GH and no other top suspect !

I tend to agree, althought one might object that GH precisely invented a Jewish scape-goat because of previous anti-semitic echoes (Leather Apron, Mrs Long suspect, DY, GSG).

[Malcolm X]

I tend to agree, althought one might object that GH precisely invented a Jewish scape-goat because of previous anti-semitic echoes (Leather Apron, Mrs Long suspect, DY, GSG).

yes, i cant argue against this, except that he seems so suspicious over everything else as well

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby. If Blotchy killed MJK, it must have been after about 45 minutes (or more) of regaling him with Irish folk music.

Why did he wait so long?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn
Thats a great question-one of which I have struggled with mightily.
Perhaps he enjoyed her singing, her company-drinking with her. perhaps they passed out together and he woke up at a later time and killed her.

I think Hutch's A-man and story of seeing mary that night was fictitious. Although I think he was their waiting (confirmed by Sarah Lewis) for her guest to leave-in this scenario, Blotchy.

Blotchy was the last man seen with mary in her place (discounting A-man) and therefore has to IMHO be the best bet for her killer and therfore JtR.

[The Good Michael]

Blotchy was the last man seen with mary in her place (discounting A-man) and therefore has to IMHO be the best bet for her killer and therfore JtR.

Abby, I'd agree based on what we know. Yet, I wonder if this guy was a denizen of the Court or a frequenter of one or more of the various prostitutes who lived there. he didn't try and keep himself unknown and it seemed that it was business as usual for a client and his hooker. I believe he was checked or even came forward and we don't know anything more about him.

Lynn does ask the good questions.

Mike

[lynn cates]

2 points

Hello Abby. Thanks. Two quick points.

1. If they drank together, got comfortable together, perhaps even passed out together, where was the knife at this time? If it were concealed in his coat, would not that have been off whilst he were "relaxing"?

2. What was GH's motive for making up the A-man story? To be important?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Hi Ben,

agreed, as usual. Bridewell must be another top-researcher whose knowledge is so vast that he doesn't have to pay attention to Debs reasoning and suggestion.

Peter Crouch in the loony bin, 1892...Sigh.....

You're basing your conclusions about the quality of my research on whether or not I agree with your conclusions on this one issue. You're entitled to your opinion; I'm entitled to mine.

[lynn cates]

In search of Blotchy.

Hello Michael. Thanks for that.

You are right about the investigation of Blotchy. I found a snippet in "The Echo" in which all the local pubs had their bar tenders chatted up concerning Blotchy. None recognised the description. Next they questioned the "pot boys" about "pot returns" at Miller's court. No luck again.

Sometimes we forget how thorough the Met were.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

You're basing your conclusions about the quality of my research on whether or not I agree with your conclusions on this one issue. You're entitled to your opinion; I'm entitled to mine.

Bridewell,

It's what they do when you don't agree. It's fun to stir 'em up though. It keeps you a step ahead of them.

Mike

[lynn cates]

whose line?

Hello Malcolm. Almost missed you. So sorry.

" . . . he started his anti-semitic rubbish at Dutfields only, but he didn't bother with regards to MJK . . ."

But why start then? Are you suggesting a complete change of motive?

"........ you only see this from GH and no other top suspect!"

To describe someone as looking Jewish is not necessarily anti-semitic. In his mind perhaps just a statement of fact? (Umm, top suspect?)

"GH carried on what JTR started a month earlier...............Blotchy Face did not."

What did "he" start a month earlier? And who was Blotchy anyway?

"Now 2 + 2 = 4 doesn't it?"

Well, I should think so. I should also think that would be MY line.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

minimalism

Hello Michael. Missed your earlier post. Sorry.

"Call me naive, but I can't see 5 or 6 copycats running around . . ."

I see Kate as the only true copycat. Not sure that MJK was intentional copycatting. Many see no problem with Coles and McKenzie.

" . . . nor can I see what was done to Kelly as being a one off."

Very well. But the manner certainly was.

"These things are possible, but in my attempts at reasoning out such things, I'm finding no easy answers."

Nor I. Farewell, then, minimalism. (I'd say, good riddance. Heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

You're basing your conclusions about the quality of my research on whether or not I agree with your conclusions on this one issue. You're entitled to your opinion; I'm entitled to mine.

No, Bridewell, it's not a matter of opinion, it's just about reasoning and being open-minded.

What do we have ? On the one hand, a strange 6'7 that is absolutely uncorroborated, and even in conflict with the weight, the medical notes, and the witnesses testimonies. On the other hand, a scrupulous researcher, ie Debs, who is suggesting that it could be a mistake, and provides a very sensible solution (once again, based on soldiers height for the same period).

It's therefore clearly not a matter of opinion, but mere common-sense. Yes, it could be a mistake, and perhaps, as Debs suggested, Fleming was actually 5'7.

If you can understand that was all I meant (and also accept my excuse for having been a bit rude), then you'll be miles ahead The Good Michael, whose risible strategy is to escape questions when proven wrong.

[The Good Michael]

Nor I. Farewell, then, minimalism. (I'd say, good riddance. Heh-heh)

I've read enough fantasy books to know that if I go beyond minimalism (an as I'm in Kazakhstan it's difficult to do more than just maintain), I have a chance at going off the deep end. I mean, what if I end up teaching -gulp- philosophy?
Would I ever come back? -key David Bowie's Space Oddity-

Mike