Favoured Suspect...

[Lewis C]

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

Hi George,

Good points, and I would say that in general, if something places a suspect in the area of Eddowes' murder, then it also places him in the area of Stride's murder, in the sense that usually he would have had the opportunity.

If all we have for a suspect is a confession, then that isn't much, but if a man looks like a decent suspect even without the confession, then I think his confession is worth mentioning as a secondary reason to suspect him.

[FrankO]

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.

Hi Mike,

Although, of course, you’re right that we shouldn’t expect Abberline to have understood and considered the differences in goals of each series, I don’t think any of what I wrote depends on Abberline’s knowledge of serial killers (or lack thereof).

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.

To be clear, my point wasn’t directed at Abberline or anybody back then, I was just reacting to your “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.” and “He couldn't slice up his missus and hope to get away with being the Ripper if he was caught,...”So, your view, not Abberline’s.

I can understand his view, knowing so little about serial killers, but I still think you’re stepping over what satisfied the Ripper a bit too quickly. My view, but it’s just that, is that the Ripper chose the right type of victims to satisfy his morbid desire: women he, probably, didn’t know and found cruising the streets in the middle of the night. So, the chosing of his victims was guided by his desire.

The way I see it is that, if the Ripper was Chapman, then he let go of the desire that drove him in 1888 and it was some other perversion driving him between 1897 and 1902. I don’t think that he was still driven by his desire to cut his victims open by that time and thought: well, I can’t do that with my wife, so, instead, I feed her some poison and watch her die a slow and agonizing death. If he was still driven by the desire that drove him in 1888, then I’d expect him to have chosen victims whom he could cut open. Or that he would have led his wives to some place he had no particular or clear connection with to kill, mutilate & leave them one by one. But, by that, I’m not saying that we can totally rule out Chapman – just like yourself.

Cheers,
Frank

[The Baron]

Could someone please explain to me anything realistically that Lechmere has going for him?

He was seen near a freshly killed woman.. alone .. in the dark...


The Baron

[Geddy2112]

He was seen near a freshly killed woman.. alone .. in the dark...

Sorry that is not true, apart from the dark bit. He was seen standing in the middle of the road. Lechmere approached Paul then they both went to the body together. Lechmere was never alone with the body according to the sworn statements from the inquest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He was a few feet from a woman that had been recently killed.

Cross gullibles keep childishly using the word ‘freshly’ like parrots because they think that it makes it seem sinister. We don’t know when she was killed…anyone that claims to know that they do is a liar.

He was never seen next to the body until Robert Paul was with him.

You can’t murder someone with a knife, then mutilate them from 10 feet away. So his location isn’t relevant. John Davis was alone and even closer to a ‘freshly killed’ woman. Was he the ripper too?

Where should he have been at around that time 6 days ago week? Just where he was. He hadn’t varied his habits at all.

That it was in the dark is about as relevant as saying that someone found a body in the rain. It was dark because it was 3.40 am in late August. It couldn’t ‘not’ have been dark.

The majority of people that find bodies are alone. Some aren’t. Some have dogs with them. Another non-point.

We cannot name another serial killer that killed a victim 20 minutes before being due at work.

We can’t name a serial killer who, when hearing someone approach, stood around waiting for the person to turn up (this alone should exonerate him.)

He finds a body, waits until a stranger turns up, goes for a Constable then attends the inquest. Yeah…sounds guilty.

And let’s not forget that The Baron wrote post after post after post ridiculing Cross as a suspect with comments about those who favoured him too. And then, just because Bury was mentioned as a suspect, a Baron senses the opportunity to try and wind up a few posters so he changes position and suddenly becomes Mr. Lechmere-supporter. His purpose is unmistakable.

If only we had proof that he originally felt that Bury was a great suspect. Oh yes, we do…

”This is Mind blowing!

Wasn't Bury a sexualy insane murderer?!

Isn't that a sexual mutilation in the full sense of the word?!

I favour Kosminski as a suspect, but how can anyone counter the argument that Bury Was Jack the Ripper?!”

- The Baron can when he senses the opportunity of starting an argument.

…

This isn’t a serious poster. It’s someone that changes like the wind when he senses a chance of causing problems. We have example after example of it.

[The Baron]

- I am now ‘convinced’ that he has to be taken seriously as a suspect; as the ripper and maybe the Torso Killer

- Lechmere might be our man though

- Fish, I take my hat off to you

The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Baron

Is that the best you have Baron? I was, for once being a bit too conciliatory after periods of acrimony. So what. I’m not in the least embarrassed by that one example. I could write a small book on you though. It’s all there in black and white, posted by me, that you just have no response to because you have finally been conclusively exposed.

[Abby Normal]

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.

bury post mortem mutilated ellen bury by gashing her midsection just like the ripper. and you not only deny this fact but accuse me of being disingenuous. i was loath to engage you from your past posting history and personal attacks. i wont make that mistake again.
on ignore you go and i am reporting you for a blatant personal attack. good riddance.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And just as a final reminder.

Is there any evidence that Baron changed his mind just for the sake of it? And that just before the discussion where he claimed that Bury was one of the weakest suspects and Lechmere one of the strongest, that he believed the exact opposite? Yes there is, here’s just a bit of it:

“Don't tell me you swallowed the blood 'evidence' of Fisherman?!”

“Lechmerians want us to believe anything they say,”

“It must be Lechmere's magic,”

“I like to start my daywork by killing cutting and mutilating someone around”

“Fisherman is selling the idea that if Mizen went to the body and found no policeman there,”

“And look how the Lechmerians contradict themselves!”

“This whole theory is based ubon the ignorance of all other parties involved, one has to be an imbecile to believe such nonsense”

“No Fish, that will not work, try harder!”

“Caz post has set an end to this fishy tunnel under logic and facts that you are trying to escape through”

“I read some fairy tales that were much better than this.”

“Sophistry: the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving”

“Lechmere wouldn't have lied to Mizen, then he is risking finding the police over his shoulder.”

“He could have run away, but the Lechmerians want us to believe he injected himself intentionally in the events after killing Nichols,”

“A very disturbed theory, with zero consistency.”

”Lechmerians have failed to bring any single evidence or shred of a clue to justify their claims, they even went to the extreme phantasy and presented Lechmere as the solo ripper-torso murderer of his time, aka Lechmerianismus!”

“If a lechmerian told me: look at Lechmere, all of his actions whithout any single exception were very normal, doesn't that seem suspicious to you? Then I would say he has a better argument than anything was ever produced by Fisherman and his company.”

“If he chose to run away no one ever will be talking now about him, and Paul could have very likely missed the body.”

“Thats why this is a very weak theory, one has first to believe of Lechmere guilt then try to find excuses to keep the flame on:

“Endless excuses to fit Lechmere in.

“But the Lechmerians remained in their subzero state of denial.”

And, according to Baron, Bury is one of the weakest suspects. Yes, from the same man who not too long ago said this:

“This is Mind blowing!
Wasn't Bury a sexualy insane murderer?!
Isn't that a sexual mutilation in the full sense of the word?!
I favour Kosminski as a suspect, but how can anyone counter the argument that Bury Was Jack the Ripper?!”

You fancy an argument and it’s “all change.”



I rest my case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I won’t be posting on this thread with this poster again and I’d advise others to beware. I’ve fallen for it a few times and gone down the path of long drawn out arguments. It’s not worth it and it adds no value to any discussion.

[DJA]

[John Wheat]

He was seen near a freshly killed woman.. alone .. in the dark...


The Baron

This is not true. He found a body that's all.

[Abby Normal]

This is not true. He found a body that's all.

john hes just trying to wind everyone up. ignore him my friend.

[John Wheat]

john hes just trying to wind everyone up. ignore him my friend.

Its sad really.

[Sunny Delight]

bury post mortem mutilated ellen bury by gashing her midsection just like the ripper. and you not only deny this fact but accuse me of being disingenuous. i was loath to engage you from your past posting history and personal attacks. i wont make that mistake again.
on ignore you go and i am reporting you for a blatant personal attack. good riddance.

I find it unfortunate that you feel that way. I do not make personal attacks, I always try to be careful in what I say. You obviously take exception to my posts. That is up to you. I think you might be referring to the Madeleine McCann thread where I challenged your view it was the parents that did it.

Bury did not show any of the characteristics of the Ripper. Mutilation was poorly executed and superficial and you are being disingenuous in regards that by attempting to make it sound as though it was similar to the Ripper when it wasn't.