Jack The Ripper solved?

[Lechmere]

I have a picture of Charles Lechmere - there are similarities to Le Grand.
I don't think they were ever seen together and both used aliases.

[Wickerman]

But you are a secret Druittist!

I know you've accused me of that before, and yes it is partly my fault.

But no, I have no reason to suspect Druitt. I don't suspect Druitt, what I do acknowledge though is that for some inexplicable reason he was named, and after being so well researched by many over the decades not one circumstance has ever been found that can rule him out.

Good evening Wickerman,

You don't have one single suspect you favor? Not one. Not even a little.

Roy

Hi Roy.
Well, speaking plainly, there isn't a whole lot to choose from. All the modern suspects are the result of forced speculation, and the few contemporary suspects we are left with were either ruled out at the time or left unresolved.

I can honestly say there is no-one so far named who is worthy of suspicion.

[Tecs]

Hi Tecs. There's no reason to believe Mary isn't part of the series any more than there is any of the other women.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

Absolutely true. I remember Stewart on a T.V. programme saying that if you wanted an absolute M.O. that links the murders, the only real one would be cut throat and abdominal mutilation and that would link only Nicholls, Chapman and Eddowes.

But, without going too far off the point, there's good reason to believe (which I do) that his aim always was to kill the victim as efficiently as possible then remove organs. The fact that he didn't in Nicholls and Stride is easily explained by his being interrupted. But no need to debate that here, we need a new thread if anyone wanted to....again!

It is interesting to speculate that Mary could have been a copycat or domestic in which the perpetrator did what he did thinking that that was what the real Ripper did, remembering that the public then possibly knew less about the real details than we do now.

regards,

[Tecs]

Hello Tecs, and welcome.

Regarding Hutchinson's alibi, it is unlikely that he was ever asked for one as he was apparently never grilled as a suspect. However, it may be significant that he had an essentially non-existent alibi for the generally accepted time of the murder - after 3.00 but before 4.00. He was, according to his press account, "walking about" the streets at that time, which could be neither verified nor contradicted. He had, in essence, a potentially convenient NON-alibi for Kelly's murder, despite apparently having loitered outside her home (and watched it) shortly before that murder happened.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

I can't believe that discreet enquiries weren't made by the police into a man who comes forward and volunteers the fact that he was at the murder site at the time of the murder, knew the victim and actually spoke to her!

I'm sure he was looked into. The fact that we have no actual details of any "interrogation" doesn't seem strange to me at all.

regards,

[curious]

It is interesting to speculate that Mary could have been a copycat or domestic in which the perpetrator did what he did thinking that that was what the real Ripper did, remembering that the public then possibly knew less about the real details than we do now.

regards,

Hi, Tecs,

I have speculated exactly the same thing -- as I suppose many have.

My problem with a copycat for MJK is wondering whether an average person, who perhaps killed in rage, could have physically done what was done to the body. How would most people's own bodies react to such a situation -- perhaps vomiting or other physical manifestations that might prevent following through on the horror of the mutilations.

Did her murderer not have to be of an extraordinary ?mindset? (is that the right word?) to be able to accomplish that amount of gore?

Especially if the killer happened to be someone who knew her well and was emotionally attached. I don't think people have great control over their emotions, so I'm not sure the killer did not have to be mad just to accomplish what occurred in that room.

curious

[Wickerman]

I'm sure he was looked into. The fact that we have no actual details of any "interrogation" doesn't seem strange to me at all.

At the very least Scotland Yard could have telegraphed the local station in Romford, to have a Det. constable/Inspector sent to the address to make enquiries.

Enquiries would also have been made at the Victoria Home as to when Hutchinson finally made an appearance, at what time and in what condition was he in, and as to his demeanor. They may also have searched the location rented by him.

It is also possible that Abberline had Sarah Lewis brought to identify Hutchinson, none of this can be verified but at the very least such measures would be expected today.
Common sense in 1888 had the same value as it does today.

The police files were far more extensive than what we can glean from the Coroners Inquest.

[c.d.]

If the police couldn't figure out that Hutchinson and Kidney were both prime suspects then we have serious problems in making even the most basic assumptions about this case. We are talking about Scotland yard detectives here not children. And if they were determined to be prime suspects then you ask them for an alibi. It's not rocket science, it's common sense and basic police procedures.

c.d.

[Ben]

Gentlemen, I've addressed your points in the relevant suspect forum.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

And why, oh why, do we not have Paul saying "I could hear a man walking in front of me down Buck´s Row, and then I heard the steps die down in the darkness. A few seconds later I saw this man standing in the street ..."

Why is it that he says nothing at all of being aware of that other man until he sees him a few feet from the victim, standing in the middle of the street?

The reason that springs to mind is that Cross never heard Paul`s footsteps until he himself had stopped walking, and then he heard Paul approaching.
The same reason that Paul never heard Cross, because he was walking and probably only heard his own footsteps.

Lastly - if I may: Many, many thanks for debating this soundly and justly. You set an example for others to follow.

Thank you, too.
Although, I disagree with the name thing, I can`t argue that Cross was alone with a very recently despatched Nichols, and cannot be ruled out.

[Jon Guy]

I have a picture of Charles Lechmere - there are similarities to Le Grand.

Hi Ed

Do you really have a picture of Lechmere ?

[Sally]

Hi Ed

Do you really have a picture of Lechmere ?

I bet he does...

[Jon Guy]

I bet he does...

I hope so ... complete with blotchy face and carrotty moustache.

I noticed Ed used "picture" and not "photo" .. hmmm...

[Tom_Wescott]

I noticed Ed used "picture" and not "photo" .. hmmm...

It must be a selfie.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jon Guy]

It must be a selfie.

I hear he`s working on the book , Tom. So, I imagine there`ll defo be one of himself smoking a pipe by a typewriter on the back cover.

[Sally]

I hear he`s working on the book , Tom. So, I imagine there`ll defo be one of himself smoking a pipe by a typewriter on the back cover.

And be called "I Caught Jack: The Memoirs of a Poster"?