Tell me who JTR was

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

sorry double posted

[Lechmere]

Even if 5 foot 7 inches - which means denying a clear and unambiguous record in a working document - we don't know hat this was the same person known by Mary Kelly.
We don't know that the person referred to as Joe by (off the top of my head) Venturney was Joe Fleming
Also if this person was the same and of he had not been specifically cleared in 1888, then when his name appeared in various asylum registers with an alias, it has to be assumed that the police somehow missed it - when we know that they did check the asylum registers.

The best suspect ever?
Because someone called Joe Fleming was an ex of Kelly?
Because someone called Joe who may have been the same person (but may not have been) ill-used Kelly?
Because someone called Joe Fleming (who may or may not have been the same as either of the above) from roughly the right area went mad and was sent to an asylum?
That is about it.

[lynn cates]

right

Hello David. Hope you are well.

"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?"

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Hi Lynn,

I'm fine, thanks.
I'm indeed pretty confident that MJK isn't a random victim.
It's quite interesting to compare Ed Kemper with Fleming/JtR. A mother in one case, an ex-fiancée in the other.
Kemper killed young students, and finally his mother.
JtR killed old prostitutes, and finally his young lover.

Hope you're fine too, Lynn.

And hope you're fine also, Christer.

[John Wheat]

"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?"

To Lynn

Perhaps Kelly was in the habit of using her room as a knocking shop so to speak or possibly the killer new Kelly.

Cheers John

[Brenda]

.

.. [apart from the recorded facts of his interrogation and alibi that is]

... is that there is no motive. He was the one who left Kelly - not the other way around. How does that fit into a 'jealous spurned lover' scenario, exactly?

Hi Sally,

Just telling you my thinking....but I feel like a motive regarding "Barnett as JTR" kind of goes beyond just a jealous spurned lover. Once again it would go back to control.

Once Barnett lost his job, he and Mary started falling apart. The loss of the job must have a lot to do with that! Perhaps Mary was only with Barnett because he could provide well. That's a blow to the ego in itself. Plus she was going back out on the streets. She was bringing home other women he didn't approve of. He had lost "control" of her. Throw in some deep-seated rage and sexual issues and put it all under pressure....

He had left her, yes, but he was still going back. I think leaving her may have been a way of trying to regain the control, but she wasn't caring that he was gone. Nothing was working....

As incredible as it is, there are cases of serial killers going dormant. I don't believe that BTK would have killed again, he only got caught because he couldn't overcome his need for some more media attention. I don't understand how a brutal killer goes dormant either, it seems to fly in the face of the rational. But these are not rational people.

Here's a link to an old case from the US you may find interesting when you have a little time:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/list/15.html

Although the John List case would technically be labeled a "spree murder" instead of "serial killing"...it does give a peek into the brain of a murderer that I believe could be loosely similar to arguing a case for Barnett, as List was under a lot of stress and losing control as well.

John List was just a good ol' guy, a religious man. In fact, one might classify him as a bit of a religious fanatic. One day he lost his job and he was hiding this fact from his family. He was getting into deep financial problems. He had found out his wife had contracted syphilis from her first husband, and she had been keeping this a secret from him for 18 years. Also, he was furious with at least one of his children....if I remember correctly she was wanting to go on dates and be a normal teenager, but he wanted to keep the family under his complete religious control. She was defiant towards him. When he couldn't get things under control again, he didn't snap....he meticulously planned and executed the brutal deaths of his entire family...wife, mother, 3 children. Then he went out, began a new life, was happily married, and never killed again. It boggles the mind.

But anyway, I am by no means trying to convince people onto the "Barnett Wagon"....believe me, I know all the arguments against him well enough, and good arguments many of them are!

All I am saying is that after 12 years of studying every angle I can read on this case, Barnett is one suspect that logically I should have left behind long ago, and I just CAN'T DO IT. He feels very very wrong to me, and no amount of logic seems to help me shake that feeling.

Thanks for your comments GUT and Sally...and for listening to the ravings of this woman of illogic...I hope if you have time you can read the John List case and let me know your feelings on things!