Tell me who JTR was

[richardnunweek]

sorry double posted

[richardnunweek]

Hi..
Yes we cannot escape the height can we.
6'7 is a good enough reason to feel a persecution complex..but perfect to be a plasterer...ha
We will have to absolutely confirm this man's height before we can judge, if 5'7 the best suspect ever.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi..
Yes we cannot escape the height can we.
6'7 is a good enough reason to feel a persecution complex..but perfect to be a plasterer...
We will have to absolutely confirm this man's height before we can judge, if 5'7 the best suspect ever.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

... there are other important details that make Joseph Fleming the best suspect ever ... his height (5'7)
All the best
David

Fleming shrunk? A whole foot???

Good to see you around again, David!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I just read your excellent article and it sort of answered one of my concerns but it raises another question. In it, you speculate that Lechmere went to the police because he knew that he could be identified by Paul and PC Mizen. Supposing of course that he was the killer, is this the optimal strategy? How likely is it that they could actually find him so this identification could occur? And even then, if they didn't suspect him that night, what could they possibly prove? By interjecting himself into the case and providing a false name, to me he is playing a more risky game. He is exposing himself to more attention and if his deceit becomes known this would put him at a great risk of being discovered. I think I would just disappear, but maybe he liked the attention. If he was the killer, this was a rather daring move.

Hi Barnaby, and thanks for the kind words on my article!

Why did he not just disappear? Hard to say, but we must to begin with weigh in that he had a family living in Doveton Street. Disappearing yourself is something that is readily managed, but a whole family?
How would he break the news to his wife, for instance? How would he motivate a sudden urge to leave the job he had held down for twenty years, without having anything new to replace it with?

Let´s also accept that if he did the disappearance act, then the police - who at this stage would be searching high and low for a carman who had a working trek that took him through Buck´s Row - would keep themselves informed of any such carmen that suddenly did not turn up for work.

After that, they would know that the man they were looking for was Charles Allen Lechmere, formerly living in Doveton Street, now disappeared.

And they would feel that they had their killer.

Based on this, the tactic he employed was not half bad, I´d say.

Personally, I do not exclude the possibility that he had been killing for a number of years as 1888 came along. As I have hinted at before, I think that he may have been the Thames Torso killer, as well as the Ripper - controversial though the suggestion may seem, it´s also slightly controversial to think that there were two proliferate serialists terrorizing London during the same period. Plus the Pinchin Street torso makes for a nice connection point.
I think he may have had his haunts defined, and that he would be reluctant to leave the double - or even triple! - life he led behind him and try to start new somewhere else.
And if I am guessing correctly, he did not have to; he simply took up where he had left off and killed Chapman a little more than a week afterwards.

The aspect of enjoying fooling the police may also have played a role. If he was a seasoned killer when he dispatched Nichols, he may well have come to the conclusion that the police were a bunch of fools that were not worthy of being worried about. The Torso killer certainly shows us that a serialist may take joy in teasing the authorities, so no matter if they were one and the same, they may well have been made of the same material anyway in this context.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

My rather flip thread title aside, obviously the Whitechapel Murders will go down as one of the greatest unsolved crimes in history. However... based on the mountains of circumstantial evidence, witness testimony, police reports and criminal psychology, is there ONE suspect you believe stands out above the rest, even if the distinction is by the width of a gnat's wing? Whatever pet theories you hold, I'm here to be convinced.

Hi Harry D

Certainly there is one suspect who stands (far) above the rest.
The killer has to be somebody who knew MJK very well.

It cannot be a coincidence that she'd been killed in her room soon after Barnett left her.

Some will argue that JtR killed indoors because it became too risky in the streets. But that makes no sense. If so, why is she the only victim killed indoors ?

And there are other important details that make Joseph Fleming the best suspect ever...his age (29), the place he lived in that automn, his height (5'7), his weight, etc., not to mention his violence and madness.

And he never came forward after the murder. Well...or perhaps he did...

All the best
David

[Barnaby]

Hi Fisherman,

I just read your excellent article and it sort of answered one of my concerns but it raises another question. In it, you speculate that Lechmere went to the police because he knew that he could be identified by Paul and PC Mizen. Supposing of course that he was the killer, is this the optimal strategy? How likely is it that they could actually find him so this identification could occur? And even then, if they didn't suspect him that night, what could they possibly prove? By interjecting himself into the case and providing a false name, to me he is playing a more risky game. He is exposing himself to more attention and if his deceit becomes known this would put him at a great risk of being discovered. I think I would just disappear, but maybe he liked the attention. If he was the killer, this was a rather daring move.

[Fisherman]

Wickerman: Hi Christer.

I see a large distinction between, killing someone, somewhere, while you are going to work. As opposed to killing "on your way to work" (ie; between home and work".
I think the former is established in some serial killer cases, but the latter, essentially leaving a trail of bodies (hypothetically), between your home and work is bizarre to say the least.


Which serial killers are NOT bizarre...?

When I read that "Lechmere could be the killer because the murder sites were on his way to work", I get the impression the latter is being advanced.
Otherwise, why mention where he lived & worked, in connection with the murder sites?

That is not the only "because" by any means, Jon. However, you know that the one thing the police do when they have a number of dead bodies, found over time and killed in a manner that suggests a single killer being repsonsible, and when they at the same time entertain suspicion - for whatever ground - agianst a person, is to map the suspects movements as close as they can. If they have murders perpetrated in the villages A-bury, B-bury, C-bury, D-bury and E-bury, and if they can prove that their suspect has had reason to or even can be proven to have been in A-bury, B-bury, C-bury, D-bury and E-bury at the relevant hours, then they have an almighty indicator that they have the right man. And in that context, what has had him visiting these villages is of no interest at all; whether he had delivered goods, whether he has been there to se football games or whether he has passed the villages on his way to work matters not a iot. If the latter applies, that he was on his way to job, why on earth would the police say "Nah, can´t be him - people don´t kill on their way to job."

It's a point (a coincidence?) that I don't think is necessary to stress.

I couldn´t agree less, actually - I think it is of the utmost importance and totally crucial, since it potentially places him at each and every one of the murder sites at hours when very few people roamed the streets.
And counting the streets available in the East End - how large is the chance that five murders will go down along one man´s working route and/or his route to his mothers place, at hours when he would have had reason to be there...? One in twentythousand?
To quantify that, we would need to know the exact number of East End streets, their length etcetera. But I think we don´t need to delve into that to realize that the "coincidence" you suggest is an extremely sizeable one.

Do the maths yourself: If there are ten thousand East End streets, then the chance that a killing will occur on your working route is one in a thousand if you employ ten streets on your way to work. How large is the chance thereafter, that the rest of the murders will also happen on your working route or on the way to your mother´s place?

I cannot count that far.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Many things are - in hindsight. But in Lechmere´s case, let´s remember that the Stride/Eddowes killings would have blurred the picture.

It´s not until you map Lechmere that you can see the potential in the suggestion. And it would seem the police never did.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Christer.

I see a large distinction between, killing someone, somewhere, while you are going to work. As opposed to killing "on your way to work" (ie; between home and work".
I think the former is established in some serial killer cases, but the latter, essentially leaving a trail of bodies (hypothetically), between your home and work is bizarre to say the least.


When I read that "Lechmere could be the killer because the murder sites were on his way to work", I get the impression the latter is being advanced.
Otherwise, why mention where he lived & worked, in connection with the murder sites?

It's a point (a coincidence?) that I don't think is necessary to stress.

[Fisherman]

As for Lechmere killing on his way to work.
In reality wouldn't that be a bit of a giveaway?

Many things are - in hindsight. But in Lechmere´s case, let´s remember that the Stride/Eddowes killings would have blurred the picture.

It´s not until you map Lechmere that you can see the potential in the suggestion. And it would seem the police never did.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

But even if Crossmere's behaviour that morning was notably shifty, that doesn't necessarily mean he had something to hide. He could've been acting this way to avoid arousing false suspicion. He might've feared the coppers trying to pin the murder on him, as he was found with the body.

Yes! That is very true.

But think once more - he knew that he had been found alone by a victim´s side. He knew that he had not reported in a s a p. but instead not until the story was in the papers. He must also have known that he was at risk to get thoroughly investigated.
Would it be wise to use an alias instead of your correct name in such a case? If this was found out, would it not be the worst thing he could do?
If he lied to Mizen, as the records imply - would that not involve the risk that Mizen put two and two together and reported it to his superiors, being very adamant that Lechmere HAD lied?

If he was innocent, he would also know that there could be no proof against him. And like I´m told on these boards on a regular basis, somebody had to find the body. In such a situation, what most people do is not to start lying about it.

There could be an exception - he could have had negative dealings with the police before, or be at odds with them, he could have been accused and let go for some criminal activity, and for that reason he may have chosen to withhold who he was.

If I am wrong and if he was just a good guy - what a coincidence that the murders keep happening along his route to work or in close proximity to his mother´s place. And what a strange thing that the killings close to his mothers place are the ones that happen on his free night, whereas all the others happen on his working days.

Coincidences, coincidences ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Could he still be Kelly's killer? Sure - anything is possible - but making a convincing case against him in the light of the known facts is tricky. It requires convoluted reasoning and special pleading.
.
.
In response to the title question of this thread, I doubt that we'll ever know. In the meantime, we can fit up as many suspects as we like for the job - it's easy enough to do.

I'm surprised you offer this balanced reasoning with respect to Barnett, and yet you appear to fight tooth and nail for the opposite view with respect to Hutchinson.

To my mind, what you write above is equally applicable to Barnett, Hutchinson, and while we're on the subject, Lechmere, plus a host of others to varying degrees.

Would I be expecting too much to see you offer the same opinions on a Hutchinson thread?

[Wickerman]

...
When Kelly’s lived at Breezers Hill, her landlord/pimp’s also sent his children to Betts Street School.
They would have been there at the same time as Lechmere’s children.
So there is a potential connection between Charles Lechmere and Mary Kelly.

I can see the potential for a link between Lechmere & Mrs Carthy, if as you say, the children attended the same school.

As for Lechmere killing on his way to work.
In reality wouldn't that be a bit of a giveaway?
People may call for a paper on the way to work, or a packet of smokes, but to take your morning 'kill' on the way to work...?

As for motive, what was Peter Sutcliffe’s motive? Or Fred West’s. Or Ian Brady’s? Or any of them. Their motive was that they were sick individuals. They don’t have Agatha Christie motives.

In this I agree, the motive need only be the desire to do this. It could be the feeling of 'ridding the world', or of 'power over the weaker sex', or a sexual 'thrill', an ephemeral moment, not planned and not always successful.
We only know of this killer's successes, not all his attempts.
An easily identifiable motive (hate, revenge, etc.) is not necessary.

[Harry D]

But even if Crossmere's behaviour that morning was notably shifty, that doesn't necessarily mean he had something to hide. He could've been acting this way to avoid arousing false suspicion. He might've feared the coppers trying to pin the murder on him, as he was found with the body.

[Fisherman]

Fish,

The one thing about Kelly that Lechmere doesn't have, is a proven history of murder and hostility towards women. Yeah, where was he in '88 and '89? In England quite probably and the police seemed to have thought so too as memos show people were questioned about him. One supposes that a straight shot up to London from Broadmoor, as least for a time, would make perfect sense as it would have been the ideal place to get lost in while making plans for the next destination. Still, no evidence at all that he was there or that he killed anyone else.

Mike

That´s perfectly true, Mike - we don´t even have Lechmere on record for swatting a flie.
Personally, though, I invest a lot more in a person that can be tied to the murders in terms of area and removes in time, and who is surrounded by anomalies the way Lechmere is, than in a proven bad egg that cannot be shown to have been in place.
A combination would be desirable, of course - but we have no track record of Lechmere and his interactions with his fellow Londoners, so he is not possible to pin down in that respect. Even if he seemed a good guy, though, that won´t clear him. So many serialist did seem like good guys, harmless guys, helpful guys ...

All the best,
Fisherman