Tell me who JTR was

[Harry D]

The motive?
I think we are looking at the motive when we see the pictures of the gutted Kelly.

Which is?

It's one thing to hate prostitutes and murder them, but why collect the uterus? Why remove MJK's heart?

[pinkmoon]

Which is?

It's one thing to hate prostitutes and murder them, but why collect the uterus? Why remove MJK's heart?

If you are going to the trouble to remove organs you must have someway to take them without arousing suspicion I would say our killer lived alone .

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

Have you ever done any work identifying the Mad Trapper of Rat River? He spoke Swedish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Johnson_(criminal)

Did you and poster "Lechmere" come to your conclusions separately or in conjunction?

I´ve read about the Mad Trapper, that´s all - somebody pointed out to me that he was a Swede.

Lechmere has been tracking down Charles Allen Lechmere for fifteen odd years or so, and he convinced me of the usefulness of the bid a couple of years ago when we met in London.
After that, we have done some work on Lechmere together, and other work on our own. He is a very accomplished researcher, I can say that much ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Which is?

It's one thing to hate prostitutes and murder them, but why collect the uterus? Why remove MJK's heart?

The murder itself is the motive, Harry, that´s how I see it. And the eviscerations may well be the driving factor behind it.
We don´t know that he DID collect the uterus - or even that Kellys heart was missing. But many serialists collect things to enable them to revisit the murders in their thoughts.

The best,
Fisherman

[Hatchett]

Hi Fish,

That was the first time I have read your article. I enjoyed it very much.

Best wishes.

[Lechmere]

I don’t put much store in these theories that insist that the Ripper knew Kelly and this is the reason where face was supposedly covered. Or the somewhat convoluted theories about whether or not she would have let someone in her room or whether the key was missing or whether her clothes were folded neatly.
However I will observe that Charles Lechmere’s children attended Betts Street School until mid-June 1888. He moved to Doveton Street and his walk to work then took him through the murder district ay exactly the ‘right’ time.
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 triggers for Charles Lechmere starting the type of attack associated with the Autumn of Terror and a reason for them stopping. But I also think there is a good chance that he was responsible for attacks both before and after this, so I don’t think he did stop until he probably got a bit too old for it – in the late 1890s. There are several unsolved murders of women of a similar class and unexplained deaths or bodies found in locations that Charles Lechmere had connections to.

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.

[GUT]

G'day Lechmere

However I will observe that Charles Lechmere’s children attended Betts Street School until mid-June 1888. He moved to Doveton Street and his walk to work then took him through the murder district ay exactly the ‘right’ time.

Considering the range of times open to us re Kellys death just what time would that be. From memory one Dr said 1-2, one said 3-4, Lewis says he saw her at 8:30 and Maxwell says she saw MJK at 10:30.

So what is "Exactly the right time"?

[Lechmere]

GUT
I was referring more to date time rather than o'clock time.
In that he moved to an address that meant his most direct walk to work would have taken him within 20 yards of the Tabram murder scene while her body was lying their undiscovered. He moved there about six or seven weeks before Tabram's murder.
Where if he took the route he took on the morning of 31st August, it would have meant he passed within 20 yards of Chapman's dead body (if the doctor's estimated tome of death was correct).
Where he may well have passed just 20 yards from Kelly's undiscovered dead body - depending on her time of death.
And there are explanations that can cover later times of death.

[GUT]

OK sorry mate, I thought you were saying he walked past Miller's Court at the right time of day, my bad.

I'd love to hear the explanation for a 10:30 ish time of death.

Of course it was show holiday so he wouldn't be working.

[Barnaby]

Charles Allen Lechmere is to my mind by far the best suspect ever to have been suggested. The chances that he was the Ripper are significantly larger than the chances that he wasn´t, if you ask me.

All the best,
Fisherman

I think that Lechmere is a viable suspect and I have learned much from reading Fisherman's and Lechmere's posts, but I believe that this is an overstatement. Relative to a bad lot of suspects he may be the best. But in absolute terms I wouldn't bet on it. I'd throw my money down on James Kelly to get back to Harry's original post.

Two things bother me about Lechmere:

First, I find it hard to believe that the police didn't investigate him at some point. Fisherman and Lechmere make strong arguments for this man's guilt 125 years later. Surely contemporary law enforcement could make similar inferences. The fact that he wasn't a suspect leads me to believe he was cleared, much like Hutchinson.

Second, if we grant that the Ripper killed all or most of the canonicals, then it wasn't unusual for him to take weeks off between murders. In fairness, he could also get to work quickly between murders too (perhaps very quickly!). But my point is it was within his capacity to refrain from killing for whatever reason for weeks at a time.

Now suppose Lechmere is the Ripper and he is interrupted with Nichols. So much so that he is interjected into the case, provides an alias, has to testify, etc. I would think that this would be a really good reason to take a break, yet he is at work next week.

To be equally critical of my own suspect, one thing bothers me about James Kelly. He can't be placed in Whitechapel during any of the murders. Otherwise, he is a spectacular suspect.

[GUT]

G'day Barnaby

I too have had a long hard look at James Kelly, the only thing that worries me is that non of the surviving documents seem to indicate that he was ever seriously on the police radar, think [from memory] after one murder there is a report that the police looked for him, but as an escaped killer I think that there would have been a number of times when they had a look.

Even f they don't seem to have looked too hard.

[Barnaby]

Hi GUT,

I believe that a concerted effort was made to locate him the day after the MJK killing. I believe they went to his mother-in-law's house (his last known address). He apparently had a really creepy relationship with her, given that he murdered her daughter and all.

I like James Kelly because it is such a good story. Here is a mentally unstable individual who works with a knife as an upholsterer, has severe sexual hangups, catches an STD from a prostitute because he can't perform with his fiancé/wife, crazily blames her, accuses her of cheating (who knows if this is true and who cares?) and knifes her to death, develops/maintains a creepy relationship with the middle-aged mother-in-law while at Broadmoor, then escapes just in time for the murders. I love it!

The downside as I mentioned is that he may have been in France, or anywhere for that matter. And that he does reappear decades later, suggesting that he either wasn't an out of control serial killer or that he stopped.

[GUT]

G'day Barnaby

Hi GUT,

I believe that a concerted effort was made to locate him the day after the MJK killing. I believe they went to his mother-in-law's house (his last known address). He apparently had a really creepy relationship with her, given that he murdered her daughter and all.

Two issues here, I am not sure how concerted it actually was and why only after MJK? I would have thought they would have been looking for him much, much earlier.

I like James Kelly because it is such a good story. Here is a mentally unstable individual who works with a knife as an upholsterer, has severe sexual hangups, catches an STD from a prostitute because he can't perform with his fiancé/wife, crazily blames her, accuses her of cheating (who knows if this is true and who cares?) and knifes her to death, develops/maintains a creepy relationship with the middle-aged mother-in-law while at Broadmoor, then escapes just in time for the murders. I love it!

His mother-in-law, as I understand it was one of the petitioners for clemency, which always made me wonder if there was some truth to his suspicions about his wife.

The downside as I mentioned is that he may have been in France, or anywhere for that matter. And that he does reappear decades later, suggesting that he either wasn't an out of control serial killer or that he stopped.

But I wouldn't rule him out just because we don't know where he was, obviously the police thought he may have been nearby, but then again Mcnaghten thought Ostrog was n England.

[Brenda]

.

I've been reading these boards for about 11 - 12 years now, so much impeccable research and so much compelling evidence for many suspects.

However, my most favorite suspect is one of the most unpopular, and he remains my favorite not because of all the evidence stacked against him, but because of just plain "female intuition" (I know, I know...)....

My favorite suspect is Joe Barnett. Something is just "off" about him for me. I feel like he was a man under tremendous stress, he lost his good job as a fish porter (and his license) around the time the murders started. Losing a good job in Victorian London could mean going from making ends meet to the very end of the line, this had to have been a huge life-shattering happening for him. After his job was gone, his relationship with Mary also began to deteriorate, and he was "losing control" of his life. Serial killers are all about control. I feel like he may have killed as a way of letting off steam, trying to get some "control" back (in his mind, anyway), and obviously there would have to be a lot of sexual turmoil factors involved as well.

I feel like the unmanageable stress brought out the violence and serial killer in him, and when Mary became the unmanageable (and "uncontrollable") stress, that's when he killed her.

Totally unscientific and unprovable....but it's just what I feel.

[GUT]

G'day Brenda

My favorite suspect is Joe Barnett. Something is just "off" about him for me. I feel like he was a man under tremendous stress, he lost his good job as a fish porter (and his license) around the time the murders started. Losing a good job in Victorian London could mean going from making ends meet to the very end of the line, this had to have been a huge life-shattering happening for him. After his job was gone, his relationship with Mary also began to deteriorate, and he was "losing control" of his life. Serial killers are all about control. I feel like he may have killed as a way of letting off steam, trying to get some "control" back (in his mind, anyway), and obviously there would have to be a lot of sexual turmoil factors involved as well.

Lots of people go through that and worse and don't go out killing!

But you're right it could have triggered something.