Tell me who JTR was

[moonbegger]

Yes Moonbeggar I thought as much - but I thought I'd use the opportunity to throw out the Cat's Meat connection. I recently re-read an 'unbiased' comparison someone did between suspects, giving each characteristic a numerical value and Lechmere was given -5 for lack of knife skills, when in fairness he should at the very least have been given 0.
Anyway - he had shops at Broadway Market, Sceptre Road and Carlton Street.
His son, grandson and great grandson had a stall at Broadway Market up to the mid 1980's. Up to the Second World War it sold Cat's Meat.

So im guessing you've already connected the dots between .. Cats meat & Pet food shop at 29 Hanbury street .

moonbegger

[Lechmere]

Yes Moonbeggar I thought as much - but I thought I'd use the opportunity to throw out the Cat's Meat connection. I recently re-read an 'unbiased' comparison someone did between suspects, giving each characteristic a numerical value and Lechmere was given -5 for lack of knife skills, when in fairness he should at the very least have been given 0.
Anyway - he had shops at Broadway Market, Sceptre Road and Carlton Street.
His son, grandson and great grandson had a stall at Broadway Market up to the mid 1980's. Up to the Second World War it sold Cat's Meat.

[moonbegger]

Was just pulling your leg , so to speak Lech , Where was his shop ?

moonbegger

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
Barnett's employment at Billingsgate as a Porter is advanced in support of his candidacy as Jack the Ripper in the mistaken belief that it gave him knife skills.
Lechmere's candidacy isn't linked to knife skills associated with his employ as a carman. But now you mention it, his mother ran a horse flesh business - for cat's meat purposes. One of Charles Lechmere's children prepared and sold Cat's Meat. In the early 1890s Charles Lechmere ran a shop in the same location where his son went on to sell Cat's Meat from. This is suggestive that Charles Lechmere may well have had flesh cutting knife skills - at least there is a stronger basis for proposing it than there is for Barnett.

[moonbegger]

For sometime I have wondered if curiosity played a part in the mutilations.

They changed and grew with his kill.

curious

Hello Curious , hope all is well . the thing is , we don't actually know how long he desired to spend with each victim . We know that if Stride was a Ripper killing , then he was undoubtedly disturbed , as was he in bucks row halfway through the Nichols mutilation ( according to contemporary sources ) Then we have Chapman , for my mind the only killing (apart from Kelly) where he had time on his side . Mitre Sq would have been tight also , So I think the timing issue's would have played a bigger part in the mutilations than curiosity . just my take .

cheers

moonbegger

[GUT]

G'day Richard

Hi Gut.
Yes Barnett, said she asked him, to read about the murders, but we only have only his word on that, he could hardly say...I read the papers to frighten her...
Still Barnett as a suspect is old hat now, and more or less dismissed....very unwise not to have some reservation
Regards Richard..

So why mention it at all?

[curious]

For sometime I have wondered if curiosity played a part in the mutilations.

They changed and grew with his kill.

The killer taking a body part home to examine where he had light might answer a question or two for him -- and for us.

Then, having the good luck to do an indoor kill gave him unprecedented time to strip the skin and flesh off the face and the muscles from the arms. I wonder if exploring a complete body might have answered enough questions that he felt satisfied with what he had learned.

Perhaps the later deaths (IF by the same man) are less invasive because his need to kill was still somewhat active, but his need to know about the female body had been satisfied.

curious

[moonbegger]

Also he was a porter not a fish gutter. Carrying fish around would not have given him any experience in wielding a knife.

Unlike a Carman

Moonbegger

[Lechmere]

Barnett is unconvincing not because he is old hat, but because he was questioned by the police for four hours, had his alibi checked and his clothes examined.
Trying to revive him as a suspect after he was explicitly cleared by the police at the time - who knew all about the ex-boyfriend scenario - is a bit fruitless I would suggest.

Also he was a porter not a fish gutter. Carrying fish around would not have given him any experience in wielding a knife.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Gut.
Yes Barnett, said she asked him, to read about the murders, but we only have only his word on that, he could hardly say...I read the papers to frighten her...
Still Barnett as a suspect is old hat now, and more or less dismissed....very unwise not to have some reservation
Regards Richard..

[GUT]

G'day Richard

Hi. Gut.
One can understand Paley's reasoning in suspecting Barnett, by his own admission he used to read all the gory bits about the murders to Kelly, which could imply that he was out to frighten her from contemplating going on the streets.

Regards Richard.

My understanding was that he said MJK would ask him to read to her about the murders.

We do not know what Barnett was like as a person, his state of mind, some people can hide insanity well, it is also convenient that he left her just over a week prior to her death, and he called on her on the eve of the 8th..hearing the words from her regular sleepover.''I shall not be seeing you again tonight then Mary Jane''
Its all rather 'B movie' material,,but this case is far from straightforward ,that is why we are still at it today.

I agree that iit is "B" movie stuff.

[richardnunweek]

Hi. Gut.
One can understand Paley's reasoning in suspecting Barnett, by his own admission he used to read all the gory bits about the murders to Kelly, which could imply that he was out to frighten her from contemplating going on the streets.
We do not know what Barnett was like as a person, his state of mind, some people can hide insanity well, it is also convenient that he left her just over a week prior to her death, and he called on her on the eve of the 8th..hearing the words from her regular sleepover.''I shall not be seeing you again tonight then Mary Jane''
Its all rather 'B movie' material,,but this case is far from straightforward ,that is why we are still at it today.
Regards Richard.

[GUT]

G'day Richard

He may have killed the person he held responsible for his actions, and upon her death, the need to continue was gone, by killing her , he had rid himself of guilt, as it was all her fault, and after that devil in him was no more...
Possible folks ..albeit we are going along the Jilted lover theory involving people like Barnett.
Regards Richard.

Possible, but likely?

I just don't buy the idea that he did it to scare Mary off the game, I can buy the mistaken identity, or could if there were only 1 or 2.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
We have heard a lot about how serial killers carry on, until caught, die, or incarcerated, which is basically sound however..
Lets say Mary Kelly was the last victim , because her death, was the end of s murder spree, and it was her that enraged him to kill other women[ for some reason]..
He may have killed the person he held responsible for his actions, and upon her death, the need to continue was gone, by killing her , he had rid himself of guilt, as it was all her fault, and after that devil in him was no more...
Possible folks ..albeit we are going along the Jilted lover theory involving people like Barnett.
Regards Richard.

[moonbegger]

Yes pinkmoon , that's always going to be a point of contention with any living suspect still at liberty after the murders ceased , but there in " Leviticus 5 -7 " lies atonement for previous sins .. And it is chillingly uncanny , the similarity between Kellys scattered remains and the passage from the Bible ..

"As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering, and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. He is to wring its head from its neck, not dividing it completely, and is to splash some of the blood of the sin offering against the side of the altar; the rest of the blood must be drained out at the base of the altar. It is a sin offering. The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven"

"In the place where they kill the burnt offering shall they kill the trespass offering: and the blood thereof shall he sprinkle round about upon the altar.
And he shall offer of it all the fat thereof; the rump, and the fat that covereth the inwards, And the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul that is above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away:
And the priest shall burn them upon the altar for an offering made by fire unto the Lord: it is a trespass offering."

Spooky eh ...

Moonbegger .

A lunar eclipse , one may suspect