Favoured Suspect...

[Lewis C]

Could someone please explain to me anything realistically that Lechmere has going for him? Other than he found a body guff.

He was a heterosexual male between the ages of 20 and 45 that lived in the area. I don't know what makes him a better suspect than the hundreds of other men that fit that description other than that he found a body.

[Lewis C]

Don't get me wrong, John, I'm not necessarily saying that I think Chapman is the best suspect, although I do think he's up there... I'm basically saying that Abberline wasn't a fool for putting Chapman forward as his man.

I'm not as convinced that the M.O. of Chapman's domestic murders are a problem for him being a candidate for the Ripper. He couldn't slice up his missus and hope to get away with being the Ripper if he was caught, though we do have some talk of him threatening Lucy with a knife in New Jersey. He's a multiple murderer of women, whichever way we look at it. If there's anything that cancels Bury, Kelly and Chapman out for me, it's the fact that they can all be considered as killing people close to them, and the Ripper was killing randoms. That's not to say that they couldn't have been killing randoms as well, as obviously Abberline felt that Chapman was doing just that.

Again, though, I'm not necessarily trying to put the case forward for Chapman being the man. I don't have any favourite suspect, I feel like if it wasn't one of those three, or "Kosminski", then it was somebody who was probably interviewed but slipped under the radar because they were seemingly normal.

Cheers

Hi Mike,

I agree that known murderers are people that should be looked at closely as suspects, because murder is something that most people don't do, so people who are known to be murderers have shown that they are among the very small part of the population that isn't above that. In addition to the 3 killers that you mentioned, I suggest that there's one more worth considering: Frederick Deeming. Not only was he a murderer, but he used the same methods of murder - throat cutting and strangulation - that the Ripper used. He was discounted at one time because it was thought that he was either in jail or in South Africa at the time of the Ripper killings, but I think that the best information that we have now is that he was in England and not in jail at that time.

[John Wheat]

He was a heterosexual male between the ages of 20 and 45 that lived in the area. I don't know what makes him a better suspect than the hundreds of other men that fit that description other than that he found a body.

So as I thought very little then.

Cheers John

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Mike,

I agree that known murderers are people that should be looked at closely as suspects, because murder is something that most people don't do, so people who are known to be murderers have shown that they are among the very small part of the population that isn't above that. In addition to the 3 killers that you mentioned, I suggest that there's one more worth considering: Frederick Deeming. Not only was he a murderer, but he used the same methods of murder - throat cutting and strangulation - that the Ripper used. He was discounted at one time because it was thought that he was either in jail or in South Africa at the time of the Ripper killings, but I think that the best information that we have now is that he was in England and not in jail at that time.

Alledgely, Deeming as a teenager also "found" a dead woman on the doorstep of his house with her throat cut.

The murder case remains unsolved.

Some coincidence that was...

[caz]

He was a heterosexual male between the ages of 20 and 45 that lived in the area. I don't know what makes him a better suspect than the hundreds of other men that fit that description other than that he found a body.

Hi Lewis,

In my view he makes a worse suspect, because he did everything that any good citizen would/should have done in 1888, on finding a vulnerable female lying in the street in the early hours. At first, from a distance, he said he thought he was seeing a tarpaulin, which is an all too common and extensively documented human reaction by those of sound mind who are on the verge of discovering a dead or dying person. The killer himself could not have had that experience, as his victims were obviously living, breathing human beings to him at first sight, and he could not possibly have mistaken them for inanimate objects.

Lechmere then alerted the next man to happen along - a stranger who could have been anyone, including a beat copper - and persuaded him to go over and look at the woman lying there. After effectively seeking a second opinion from this stranger, Lechmere went off with him to report the matter to the next policeman they saw, before they continued on to their respective places of work, so as not to lose time - and money.

It could so easily have happened the other way round, with the stranger - Robert Paul - being first on the scene, followed by Lechmere.

And we can all imagine who would eventually have been fingered as a promising new ripper suspect, and on what grounds.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mike J. G.]

Hi Mike,

I know that you're not promoting Chapman as the Ripper, but as far as I'm concerned, what at least you seem to underestimate is the force that was driving the Ripper, or that what satisfied him. That clearly had something to do with cutting up female bodies and perhaps, preferably, also cutting out organs. We see nothing of that in what Chapman did to his victims. In fact, while the Ripper killed his victims before he got to what satisfied him, Chapman seems to have enjoyed seeing the pain he inflicted. So, yes, physically Chapman's MO isn't a problem, but I see his MO as 'a world apart' from the Ripper's. Saying that he couldn't slice up his missus, doesn't cut it for me (no pun intended).

So, either they weren't the same man, or they were and he had two very different appetites.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi, Frank. I don't necessarily disagree, although all of that really hinges on whether we think that Abberline should have been expected to understand those differences in the goals of each series of murders.

When we look at what Abberline's opinions were on Chapman, his reasoning is sound enough. Obviously, knowing what we now know gives us the ability to understand the situation a little better, but for Abberline, he was simply looking at a series of sadistic murders of women. In his view, sadism was basically a bag of crisps that came in different flavours, lol.

We can see that the Ripper was interested in post mortem mutilation, but that wasn't really grasped fully back then, and not because they weren't intelligent or capable, but because that level of psychology just wasn't there like it is today.

For me personally, I'm not sure if I'd totally rule Chapman out simply because he poisoned his wives, although I do agree it's a different endgame for one than the other. But if the endgame wasn't necessarily satisfaction, but simple necessity, as in, Chapman couldn't rip his wives up so had to use other means, well then the thrill he may have gotten from slowly poisoning his wives would be sort of an added bonus, but not the intention, whereas ripping women up to play around in the offal is the intention, yet he couldn't engage in that with his domestic killings because he was directly associated.

That's me playing devil's advocate on behalf of Abberline, and also for the idea of Chapman as the Ripper. As I say, though, I'm more of the opinion that the Ripper hasn't been named on the suspect list that we've all come to know.

Cheers

[Mike J. G.]

like hutch or lech? lol

i think theyre both valid suspects, along with the three you mentioned. but re your caveat... its mine too, but as i was mentioning to jeff ham a little while ago, its not unheard of for random/stranger type serial killers to kill family members. Kemper, suff and brandt all did both.

I don't really rate Lech as a good suspect, but I would agree with killer being someone along those lines, just a regular looking fella.

Hutch is interesting, but I get more of a feeling that he was simply making up a story for the attention.

I definitely agree regarding killers killing family members, Fred West was another one.

[Mike J. G.]

Fair points but I stand by what I've said. I'm not necessarily saying Chapman is a poor suspect just that I think Bury and Kelly better suspects.

Cheers John

That's fair enough, John. Bury and Kelly are certainly up there on my list of known suspects.

[Mike J. G.]

Hi Mike,

I agree that known murderers are people that should be looked at closely as suspects, because murder is something that most people don't do, so people who are known to be murderers have shown that they are among the very small part of the population that isn't above that. In addition to the 3 killers that you mentioned, I suggest that there's one more worth considering: Frederick Deeming. Not only was he a murderer, but he used the same methods of murder - throat cutting and strangulation - that the Ripper used. He was discounted at one time because it was thought that he was either in jail or in South Africa at the time of the Ripper killings, but I think that the best information that we have now is that he was in England and not in jail at that time.

Allo, Lewis. I definitely agree with Deeming being a possibility, although I'd personally put him just behind Bury, Kelly and Chapman, simply because we can't pin him down in London at the time. It'd be great if we could uncover that evidence one day, though.

I also couldn't agree more that more attention should be paid to actual known murderers, especially murderers of women in and around Whitechapel.

[Sunny Delight]

he displayed post mortem mutilation of a woman with a knife via gashed midsection ...that alone makes him one of the best of a bad lot. add to that he was a police suspect at the time and was in the area and was your typical avg joe local nobody like most serial killers.

but i do agree that i also think that mckenzie was probably a ripper victim, so theres my conundrum lol.

So he was in the area with a population of what 900,000 and there were 37,000 in Whitechapel alone. Being in the area is irrelevant. The Police did see in him something that piqued their interest. They then cleared him. Lastly the Ripper mutilated women for sexual gratification. These type of killers do not kill their spouses for this purpose. Bury is overall a very poor suspect but amongst the rubbish we have to contend with like Charles Lechmere he can probably be seen as an OK suspect in Ripperology terms.

[Sunny Delight]

Hi Lewis,

In my view he makes a worse suspect, because he did everything that any good citizen would/should have done in 1888, on finding a vulnerable female lying in the street in the early hours. At first, from a distance, he said he thought he was seeing a tarpaulin, which is an all too common and extensively documented human reaction by those of sound mind who are on the verge of discovering a dead or dying person. The killer himself could not have had that experience, as his victims were obviously living, breathing human beings to him at first sight, and he could not possibly have mistaken them for inanimate objects.

Lechmere then alerted the next man to happen along - a stranger who could have been anyone, including a beat copper - and persuaded him to go over and look at the woman lying there. After effectively seeking a second opinion from this stranger, Lechmere went off with him to report the matter to the next policeman they saw, before they continued on to their respective places of work, so as not to lose time - and money.

It could so easily have happened the other way round, with the stranger - Robert Paul - being first on the scene, followed by Lechmere.

And we can all imagine who would eventually have been fingered as a promising new ripper suspect, and on what grounds.

Love,

Caz
X

Great post. I find the Charles Cross as the Ripper theory actually insulting to our intelligence. Most if not all of the theory can be dismissed as disingenuous, flimsy or just downright misleading. Researchers much smarter than me have proven that it is a theory built on sand. In other words it is a complete and utter nonsense pushed by those engaged in what seems to me an attempt to make money and initiate publicity.

[Abby Normal]

So he was in the area with a population of what 900,000 and there were 37,000 in Whitechapel alone. Being in the area is irrelevant. The Police did see in him something that piqued their interest. They then cleared him. Lastly the Ripper mutilated women for sexual gratification. These type of killers do not kill their spouses for this purpose. Bury is overall a very poor suspect but amongst the rubbish we have to contend with like Charles Lechmere he can probably be seen as an OK suspect in Ripperology terms.

being in the immediate area is totally relevant. if you cant even place a suspect in london a suspect you dont have. and how many of those people were post mortem mutilators of woman via knife? a handful. if that. and how many of those did the police suspect of being the ripper. right. one. bury.

that old trope of him cleared by police is balderdash. he was executed before he could be properly investigated and cleared -whatever that means in an era before dna, video, phone records etc. the only way police could "clear " anyone back then is by rock solid alibi. pretty darn hard to do.

and we have no idea if the ripper mutilated women for sexual gratification. there is no evidence of sexual assault. he may have we just dont know. there have been post mortem mutilators who it dosnt look like they did either, gein, mullins for example. the torso killer, another post mortem mutilator at the time, there is no evidence of sexual gratification either.

but i do agree all the suspects are weak, but bury is clearly one of the least weak.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis,

In my view he makes a worse suspect, because he did everything that any good citizen would/should have done in 1888, on finding a vulnerable female lying in the street in the early hours. At first, from a distance, he said he thought he was seeing a tarpaulin, which is an all too common and extensively documented human reaction by those of sound mind who are on the verge of discovering a dead or dying person. The killer himself could not have had that experience, as his victims were obviously living, breathing human beings to him at first sight, and he could not possibly have mistaken them for inanimate objects.

Lechmere then alerted the next man to happen along - a stranger who could have been anyone, including a beat copper - and persuaded him to go over and look at the woman lying there. After effectively seeking a second opinion from this stranger, Lechmere went off with him to report the matter to the next policeman they saw, before they continued on to their respective places of work, so as not to lose time - and money.

It could so easily have happened the other way round, with the stranger - Robert Paul - being first on the scene, followed by Lechmere.

And we can all imagine who would eventually have been fingered as a promising new ripper suspect, and on what grounds.

Love,

Caz
X

Good points, Caz.

[GBinOz]

Frederick Deeming. Not only was he a murderer, but he used the same methods of murder - throat cutting and strangulation - that the Ripper used. He was discounted at one time because it was thought that he was either in jail or in South Africa at the time of the Ripper killings, but I think that the best information that we have now is that he was in England and not in jail at that time.

Hi Lewis C,

I think that the seamstress that identified Deeming from a photo as "Lawson", a known alias of Deeming is a contributory factor, although it is often dis-regarded as attention seeking on her part. I might agree with that assessment had she identified him as "Deeming", as published in the press, but I wonder how she came up with the name of "Lawson"?

I tend to think that this places Deeming in the area of Eddowes murder, and his admission to two of the Whitechapel murders opens the possibility that he may have been responsible for Eddowes and Kelly.

Cheers, George

[Sunny Delight]

being in the immediate area is totally relevant. if you cant even place a suspect in london a suspect you dont have. and how many of those people were post mortem mutilators of woman via knife? a handful. if that. and how many of those did the police suspect of being the ripper. right. one. bury.

that old trope of him cleared by police is balderdash. he was executed before he could be properly investigated and cleared -whatever that means in an era before dna, video, phone records etc. the only way police could "clear " anyone back then is by rock solid alibi. pretty darn hard to do.

and we have no idea if the ripper mutilated women for sexual gratification. there is no evidence of sexual assault. he may have we just dont know. there have been post mortem mutilators who it dosnt look like they did either, gein, mullins for example. the torso killer, another post mortem mutilator at the time, there is no evidence of sexual gratification either.

but i do agree all the suspects are weak, but bury is clearly one of the least weak.

Being in the area is not an indicator of any kind of guilt. The attempted mutilation by Bury was ineffective and poorly carried out. You use the phrase mutilation as if Bury did something similar to the Ripper when he did not. That is being disingenuous.

You accept he was a Police suspect but don't accept when they clear someone. That seems a rather strange way to approach things.

Lastly the Ripper of course mutilated for sexual gratification. Taking trophies as well is part of the thrill of re-living for these individuals.