If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Lechmere was spotted alone, in the dark, near a freshly killed woman, gave a controversially statement to the police, lived in Whitechapel, had the opportunity to be outside at the time of murders, was alive and breathing when Mckenzie was killed, and Lechmere violently killed a totally strange to him boy.
Who spotted him alone? Was not Robert Paul as Lechmere approached him. Where is this controversial statement? I've ready many versions of his statement and it's certainly not controversial. Violently killed a strange boy? Is this twisting of evidence straight out of the Holmgren play book? He accidentally knocked down a child. And if I'm being fair we are not even 100% sure our Cross was that Cross. Sorry right up there with the 100% b/s on this post of yours.
I don't have a suspect, favoured or otherwise. I don't think the evidence we have allows the building of connections from any of the crime scenes to any particular individual. There are too many bridges that need to span the "unknown" to get to the information about various suspects to complete the connections.
By that, I mean identified individual, so while I think there are good arguments to be made about "unknown men seen in the company of X", I don't consider "unknown man" as a suspect in the sense I believe it is intended in this thread.
Mind you, I see some interesting possibilities that could be explored related to the "Bethnal Green Botherer", but as they too are unidentified, and it is not even established if the various snippets and accounts are even about the same individual, I can't elevate that beyond "interesting possibility to explore". Just not sure how that could get explored any further though. In many theories, particularly ones we favour, we don't notice when we leave the trail of evidence and start crossing on a bridge built of conjecture, and as a result fail to notice that our bridge lacks any real evidential support, and the link to the BGB would more than satisfy that concern if presented as any thing other than a "hmmm, curious idea" (fortunately, it hasn't been so far).
I find myself in the same place as Jeff - insufficient evidence to identify the murderer or narrow down to a favoured suspect. Some theories are stronger than others and some I allow myself to completely discount. It becomes even more difficult when we collectively are unable to agree on the full list of victims - I for one cannot entirely discount Martha Tabram and Alice McKenzie, and if they were to be included, then some popular suspects, such as Druitt, are no longer viable suspects.
I find myself in the same place as Jeff - insufficient evidence to identify the murderer or narrow down to a favoured suspect. Some theories are stronger than others and some I allow myself to completely discount. It becomes even more difficult when we collectively are unable to agree on the full list of victims - I for one cannot entirely discount Martha Tabram and Alice McKenzie, and if they were to be included, then some popular suspects, such as Druitt, are no longer viable suspects.
A lot of times, people are added or subtracted from the victim list based on whether they fit a suspect theory. I think Nichols, Chapman, and Eddows are definite victims. Kelly is near certain, Tabram probable, Stride possible, McKenzie unlikely, but not impossible.
"The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren
"Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer
A lot of times, people are added or subtracted from the victim list based on whether they fit a suspect theory. I think Nichols, Chapman, and Eddows are definite victims. Kelly is near certain, Tabram probable, Stride possible, McKenzie unlikely, but not impossible.
well i think Mackenzie is probably a ripper victim but i also think bury is one of the least weak suspects. of course both cant be true but thats just how confounding this case is!
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
well i think Mackenzie is probably a ripper victim but i also think bury is one of the least weak suspects. of course both cant be true but thats just how confounding this case is!
I’ve always thought that she was probably not but that she might have been. I don’t go any stronger than ‘probably’ because if I did certain people would accuse me of trying to keep Druitt ‘in the game.’ In reality it wouldn’t bother at all if he was proven innocent. Or indeed any suspect. I want them all proven innocent accept one.
Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
well i think Mackenzie is probably a ripper victim but i also think bury is one of the least weak suspects. of course both cant be true but thats just how confounding this case is!
Hi Abby,
I admit, I should look at the McKenzie case a lot more closely than I have as it is one that has enough suggestions to make it interesting. There were some discussions awhile back on the particulars, and as I recall, from the various police reports of their movements around the time of her discovery, there was very little time for the crime to actually happen, and there was a PC just up the street sort of thing. The time pressure, combined with the high risk element due to people/PC nearby, is very much in line with the Stride and Eddowes cases, and it could also be why the abdominal cuts are less extensive. I accept that there are, of course, counter points to be made, but at the same time there's that "hmmmm" about it that interests me.
I admit, I should look at the McKenzie case a lot more closely than I have as it is one that has enough suggestions to make it interesting. There were some discussions awhile back on the particulars, and as I recall, from the various police reports of their movements around the time of her discovery, there was very little time for the crime to actually happen, and there was a PC just up the street sort of thing. The time pressure, combined with the high risk element due to people/PC nearby, is very much in line with the Stride and Eddowes cases, and it could also be why the abdominal cuts are less extensive. I accept that there are, of course, counter points to be made, but at the same time there's that "hmmmm" about it that interests me.
- Jeff
yeah. unfortunate, killed on the street, cut throat, vertical gash to midsection, unsolved, same location, not too far out in time from previous victims. the clincher that pushes it over the line for me as probable ripper is the hiked up skirt.
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
well i think Mackenzie is probably a ripper victim but i also think bury is one of the least weak suspects. of course both cant be true but thats just how confounding this case is!
Hi Abby,
There really is no inconsistency between thinking Mackenzie is probably a Ripper victim and thinking that Bury is one of the least weak suspects if one believes as you do that all the named suspects are weak. If you think there's a 70% chance (as an example) that she was a Ripper victim, that would still leave a 30% chance that she wasn't. It might be that one thinks that a 10% chance that a particular suspect was the Ripper would be enough to make him one of the 2 best suspects. So if one thinks that there's a 30% chance that Mackenzie wasn't a Ripper victim, and a 10% chance that Bury was the Ripper, it works.
Comment