The "Suspects": Current Opinion

[Patrick S]

So, we’ve invested time, thought, and energy in discussing and – in some sense – vetting Cross/Lechmere over the past days and weeks. It seems a few have been “convinced”, some are on the fence, others remain highly skeptical (myself included). Anyone who’s been around for any length of time has seen the ebb and flow of opinion.
So where are we today? I thought it may be interesting to mine information from current opinion, while keeping it concise and to the point. So, let’s try this:

NAME your top JtR candidate.

Give one (1) to five (5) brief points that support your view.

List three ‘honorable mention’ candidates.

I’ll go first.


Name: PERSON OR PERSONS UNKNOWN

1. Contemporary investigators failed to make a convincing case against any suspect.

2. Serial killers were poorly understood in 1888, therefore I don’t have confidence that the investigation was properly focused or conducted.

3. Due that fact that forensic science was in its infancy, I am beginning to believe more strongly that these crimes were the work of several killers, working independently of one another, perhaps copying previous killings.

4. None of the current crop of (modern) suspects has, for me, survived close scrutiny.

Honorable Mentions: Hyam Hymans. Jacob Levy. Edward Buchan.

[richardnunweek]

Hi
After fifty years of interest , I have no idea..
The best named suspect I feel is Joseph Fleming..if it can be ascertained his correct height...
I feel the murder of Mary Kelly was premeditated , and carried out by the man named Joe, who was alleged to have abused Mary...this may have been Fleming who was found to have become insane a couple of years after, or someone very jealous of her, having the same name...
I also feel that all the murders were premeditated , and all of these women were stalked, until the killer saw his opportunity ..and I have a strong suspicion that Kelly's killer had moved into a Lodging house in Dorset street previous to killing her..
I do not see this killer venturing far after his activities..
Regards Richard.

[Lechmere]

Patrick

I agree with your points 1 and 2.

But what of this point:
Due that fact that forensic science was in its infancy, I am beginning to believe more strongly that these crimes were the work of several killers, working independently of one another, perhaps copying previous killings.
To summarise, because forensic science was in its infancy you think there were multiple killers.
Are these two contentions in any way related?

You asked for 5 points and only gave 4 yourself!

Of your suspects:

Hyam Hyams – was overtly mad. Indeed if he were not mad he would not come to attention. This enhances his suspect status to some – but not to me.
Due to the dates of his detention in asylums his murderous career must have ended with Kelly.
He obviously can’t be directly linked to any murder nor can it be said with any certainty that he walked down any street near to a crime scene. So I am slightly surprised at your choice. For my part I would say that due to his living in the East End he probably was familiar with those streets, but I know you require a higher standard of proof –usually.

Jacob Levy - was overtly mad. Indeed if he were not mad he would not come to attention. This enhances his suspect status to some – but not to me.
He could have killed others after Kelly as he wasn’t locked up until August 1890 and died about six months later of syphilis. But he could only plausible be linked to Mackenzie so why only Mackenzie after Kelly as he wasn’t locked up for quite a while.
He obviously can’t be directly linked to any murder nor can it be said with any certainty that he walked down any street near to a crime scene. So I am slightly surprised at your choice. For my part I would say that due to his living in the East End he probably was familiar with those streets, but I know you require a higher standard of proof –usually.

Edward Buchan – he killed himself on 19th November 1888. Do serial killers usually kill themselves? It was his birthday and coincidentally also the date of Kelly’s funeral. This is the only reason to suspect him.
He obviously can’t be directly linked to any murder nor can it be said with any certainty that he walked down any street near to a crime scene. So I am slightly surprised at your choice. As he lived in Poplar rather than anywhere near Whitechapel he probably was unfamiliar with those streets.

My lead suspect is Charles Lechmere, because
1. His behaviour on the morning of 31st August and up to the inquest is highly questionable.
2. His movements on the night of 31st August gave him the potential opportunity to have killed Nichols.
3. His family and personal background matches that of many known serial killers.
4. He can be linked to virtually all the Whitechapel murders by geography and time - by places to which he had connections.
5. He matches the general profile of the most likely culprit – innocuous, seemingly normal looking local man.

I might add that no part of the historical record has to be denied in support if his candidature – which shouldn’t really be counted as a point in his favour were it not for the fact that most supposed suspects rely on airbrushing out inconvenient details.

As for other suspects, I would include Kosminski with Grainger as an outsider. I can’t think of a third that has any credibility at all.

[Barnaby]

1. James Kelly

Reasons: No dad around, abandoned by mom, had problems performing sexually, may have contracted venereal disease perhaps by a prostitute and perhaps by his wife who may have been an occasional prostitute, killed his wife with a knife, escaped Broadmoor shortly before murders began, police were looking for him immediately after the murder of MJK.

Honorable Mentions: Cross/Lechmere, David Cohen, Druitt, somebody connected to Pearly Poll.

[Patrick S]

Patrick

I agree with your points 1 and 2.

But what of this point:
Due that fact that forensic science was in its infancy, I am beginning to believe more strongly that these crimes were the work of several killers, working independently of one another, perhaps copying previous killings.
To summarise, because forensic science was in its infancy you think there were multiple killers.
Are these two contentions in any way related?

You asked for 5 points and only gave 4 yourself!

Of your suspects:

Hyam Hyams – was overtly mad. Indeed if he were not mad he would not come to attention. This enhances his suspect status to some – but not to me.
Due to the dates of his detention in asylums his murderous career must have ended with Kelly.
He obviously can’t be directly linked to any murder nor can it be said with any certainty that he walked down any street near to a crime scene. So I am slightly surprised at your choice. For my part I would say that due to his living in the East End he probably was familiar with those streets, but I know you require a higher standard of proof –usually.

Jacob Levy - was overtly mad. Indeed if he were not mad he would not come to attention. This enhances his suspect status to some – but not to me.
He could have killed others after Kelly as he wasn’t locked up until August 1890 and died about six months later of syphilis. But he could only plausible be linked to Mackenzie so why only Mackenzie after Kelly as he wasn’t locked up for quite a while.
He obviously can’t be directly linked to any murder nor can it be said with any certainty that he walked down any street near to a crime scene. So I am slightly surprised at your choice. For my part I would say that due to his living in the East End he probably was familiar with those streets, but I know you require a higher standard of proof –usually.

Edward Buchan – he killed himself on 19th November 1888. Do serial killers usually kill themselves? It was his birthday and coincidentally also the date of Kelly’s funeral. This is the only reason to suspect him.
He obviously can’t be directly linked to any murder nor can it be said with any certainty that he walked down any street near to a crime scene. So I am slightly surprised at your choice. As he lived in Poplar rather than anywhere near Whitechapel he probably was unfamiliar with those streets.

My lead suspect is Charles Lechmere, because
1. His behaviour on the morning of 31st August and up to the inquest is highly questionable.
2. His movements on the night of 31st August gave him the potential opportunity to have killed Nichols.
3. His family and personal background matches that of many known serial killers.
4. He can be linked to virtually all the Whitechapel murders by geography and time - by places to which he had connections.
5. He matches the general profile of the most likely culprit – innocuous, seemingly normal looking local man.

I might add that no part of the historical record has to be denied in support if his candidature – which shouldn’t really be counted as a point in his favour were it not for the fact that most supposed suspects rely on airbrushing out inconvenient details.

As for other suspects, I would include Kosminski with Grainger as an outsider. I can’t think of a third that has any credibility at all.

I asked for between one and five. Go back and read again. I hope you paid better attention in researching your Lechmere is JtR drivel.

I'll quote my post:

"NAME your top JtR candidate.

Give one (1) to five (5) brief points that support your view.

List three ‘honorable mention’ candidates."


The points you mentioned are not related. I made the point with repsect to why my number one suspect is PERSON OR PERSONS UNKNOWN. The killer(s) went undetected and remain unknown because forensic science was in it's infancy......again I'll quote for you because you seem to have a bit of trouble keeping up:

"Name: PERSON OR PERSONS UNKNOWN

1. Contemporary investigators failed to make a convincing case against any suspect.

2. Serial killers were poorly understood in 1888, therefore I don’t have confidence that the investigation was properly focused or conducted.

3. Due that fact that forensic science was in its infancy, I am beginning to believe more strongly that these crimes were the work of several killers, working independently of one another, perhaps copying previous killings."

See that? 1, 2, and 3, support my 'PERSON OR PERSON UKNOWN' (Sorry to those who got this out of the chute....I'm trying to be as basic as possible for Lechere). As well, I listed THREE points. NOT FOUR. Reading. It's a skill.


Are you with us yet?

As for your critque of my listed suspects (who if you understand that my first contention is that they are the best of an impractical lot in that I listed PERSON OR PERSONS unknown), I'll not waste my time reading that as I'm certain it's just excuse for you to play up your "It could only be Lechmere" act. Go back and READ AGAIN. I refer to them as "honorable mentions", not suspects. Didn't someone call you a talented researcher?

Glad you weighed in. I'd brush up on your reading comprehesion a bit. But, thanks.

[Scott Nelson]

Henry DeFries. Gasfitter. Lived on Middelsex Street. History of family mental illness. A search of the Old Bailey court records shows a range of criminal behavior.

[Patrick S]

Okay. I lied. I read it. I can't quite you, Lechmere. That goes for Fisherman, too.

My lead suspect is Charles Lechmere (I'm shocked), because
1. His behaviour on the morning of 31st August and up to the inquest is highly questionable.

HIGHLY questionable? That's not only debatable, it's laughable. He behaves with no consiousness of guilt whatsoever. You contend he did so because he was a cool, calculating psychopath who would not attack and able bodied man and had a carefully conceived plan to avoid capture. ALL of this is dependent upon him being a psychopath. There is no evidence he was....except that he was Jack the Ripper. I'll pause now to laugh.


2. His movements on the night of 31st August gave him the potential opportunity to have killed Nichols.

So did Robert Paul's. Now, you'll come back with 'Paul was not found by the body...." My point is this. 1888. London. What's the primary mode of transport? Hint: You put shoes on them. Someone had to find the body. Cross did. You've invented the rest.

3. His family and personal background matches that of many known serial killers.

Why? Because his father died and his mother remarried? I hope that's not all you've got.

4. He can be linked to virtually all the Whitechapel murders by geography and time - by places to which he had connections.

With many, may assumptions.


5. He matches the general profile of the most likely culprit – innocuous, seemingly normal looking local man.

AH! So his seeming normality is more proof of his guilt. Forget the crazymen! Look for normal people! How many of those do we have? Here's one! Charles Cross: Alias Lechmere. Seemingly normal psychopath, angy over the death of his father (how rare to die young in the 19th century), and the remarriage of his mother (again, how rare in a age women often depended on men to support them), murdered prostitutes because....uh......he wanted to? He thought his mom was a whore for remarrying?...uh.....his dad dies of VD from a prostitute named Mary?...uh.....He was down on whores and shant stop ripping them until he does get buckled......?

I might add that no part of the historical record has to be denied in support if his candidature – which shouldn’t really be counted as a point in his favour were it not for the fact that most supposed suspects rely on airbrushing out inconvenient details.

As for other suspects, I would include Kosminski with Grainger as an outsider. I can’t think of a third that has any credibility at all.

Well. If your logic causes you to suspect Kosminski and Grainger....I'll cross them off of my list. Thanks.

See above bold.

[tji]

Hi Lechmere

Hyam Hyams – was overtly mad. Indeed if he were not mad he would not come to attention. This enhances his suspect status to some – but not to me.
Due to the dates of his detention in asylums his murderous career must have ended with Kelly.
He obviously can’t be directly linked to any murder nor can it be said with any certainty that he walked down any street near to a crime scene. So I am slightly surprised at your choice. For my part I would say that due to his living in the East End he probably was familiar with those streets, but I know you require a higher standard of proof –usually.

If I remember Hyams was put forward due to his proximity to the crimes and his violent tendencies.

It turned out the Hyam Hyams of 29 Mitre Street was not the one to be sent to the asylum.
Also I believe it was Debs and Rob Clack found his asylum notes which proved he wasn't actually the 'terror of London' he was portrayed to be.

Jacob Levy - was overtly mad. Indeed if he were not mad he would not come to attention. This enhances his suspect status to some – but not to me

Jacob likely wasn't insane in 1888, the effects of his illness would not have been full blown by then, he would have, at the very least had lucid periods.

He could have killed others after Kelly as he wasn't locked up until August 1890 and died about six months later of syphilis. But he could only plausible be linked to Mackenzie so why only Mackenzie after Kelly as he wasn’t locked up for quite a while.

Again you could look to his syphilis and the effects on his body, by now it would be causing him problems physically and mentally. Also maybe Joseph have recognized him with Catherine and put a stop to his 'wanderings'

He obviously can’t be directly linked to any murder nor can it be said with any certainty that he walked down any street near to a crime scene. So I am slightly surprised at your choice. For my part I would say that due to his living in the East End he probably was familiar with those streets, but I know you require a higher standard of proof –usually.

He lived in the epi centre of the crimes and lived in that street (Petticoat Lane) most of his life, moving for a short time to 111 Fieldgate Street.
I would imagine he was very familiar with the streets.

Tracy

[Lechmere]

tji
It was Hyams and Levy's appearance in asylum records that brought them to attention - surely. That led to research to place them in the general area which I accepted.
I was being ironic about the lack of direct evidence placing them in individual streets.

[Lechmere]

Patrick

You didn’t say between one and five.
You opened the thread saying ‘give one (1) to five (5) brief points’, which is more like saying give five points. It is at best ambiguous.
Why say ‘one to five’ if you only had four?
A bit odd if you ask me.

But you claim you only made three points and not four (certainly not five – we know that much).
But you did make four – look…

1. Contemporary investigators failed to make a convincing case against any suspect.
2. Serial killers were poorly understood in 1888, therefore I don’t have confidence that the investigation was properly focused or conducted.
3. Due that fact that forensic science was in its infancy, I am beginning to believe more strongly that these crimes were the work of several killers, working independently of one another, perhaps copying previous killings.
4. None of the current crop of (modern) suspects has, for me, survived close scrutiny.

You forgot about your point 4, which I have helpfully rendered in bold.
I didn’t suggest that your points did not address your unnamed suspect.
You don’t seem to realise that I was pointing out that your point 3 contained two unrelated clauses:

Due that fact that forensic science was in its infancy, I am beginning to believe more strongly that these crimes were the work of several killers, working independently of one another, perhaps copying previous killings.

How does the fact that forensic science was in its infancy influence your opinion that the crimes were not the work of one killer?
That is the question is was asking.

I think you have more than a little cheek in accusing me of not reading what you said when you set up your opening post in an ambiguous manner, and then clearly had a rush of blood to your head with a resulting red mist obscuring your eyes which meant you have been utterly unable to comprehend what I was saying.

[Abby Normal]

So, we’ve invested time, thought, and energy in discussing and – in some sense – vetting Cross/Lechmere over the past days and weeks. It seems a few have been “convinced”, some are on the fence, others remain highly skeptical (myself included). Anyone who’s been around for any length of time has seen the ebb and flow of opinion.
So where are we today? I thought it may be interesting to mine information from current opinion, while keeping it concise and to the point. So, let’s try this:

NAME your top JtR candidate.

Give one (1) to five (5) brief points that support your view.

List three ‘honorable mention’ candidates.

I’ll go first.


Name: PERSON OR PERSONS UNKNOWN

1. Contemporary investigators failed to make a convincing case against any suspect.

2. Serial killers were poorly understood in 1888, therefore I don’t have confidence that the investigation was properly focused or conducted.

3. Due that fact that forensic science was in its infancy, I am beginning to believe more strongly that these crimes were the work of several killers, working independently of one another, perhaps copying previous killings.

4. None of the current crop of (modern) suspects has, for me, survived close scrutiny.

Honorable Mentions: Hyam Hymans. Jacob Levy. Edward Buchan.

Hi Patrick
Blotchy.
1.Last credible suspect seen with the murder victim entering her room.
2.Average joe local
3.Never came forward indicating possible conscious of guilt
4. Also fits witness description of Lawendes and Ada Wilson
5. Process of deduction: Mary Kelly is the key to the case-as the evidence seems to indicate she knew her killer. Mary Kelly was described by witnesses as being seen with 4 different men that night: Barnett, Blotchy, Hutch and Aman. I would posit that one of these men probably had something to do with her murder.

Barnett:interogated and cleared by police, also had alibi.
Hutch: Highly questionable story and "suspect". Possibly Just for personal gain.
Aman: more than likely a fictitious character invented by hutch.

That leaves Blotchy and in my opinion the most likely to be her killer and JtR.

Plus he technically fits your persons unknown suspect. : )

[Lechmere]

Patrick

I find it fascinating that you are able to determine that Lechmere was not acting with any consciousness of guilt.

I haven’t invented any of Lechmere’s movements – you seem to think that Paul could equally have done it by presumably hiding somewhere and reappearing as if by magic.

His father didn’t die and his mother remarried – so no that is not what I’ve got at all. But I won’t clutter up this thread with it.

He can be linked to the crime scenes with minimal assumptions and major facts. More so than any other named suspect.

My point five (innocuous, seemingly normal looking local man) was made to contrast Lechmere with the more usual suspect – overt nutcase, foreigner or outsider. I didn’t say Lechmere’s normality was proof of his guilt – but alongside the other evidence and in contrast to the ‘crazies’ it does support my view that he is the strongest candidate.
In my view a suspect first has to pass an overall plausibility test.
The overt nutters and flamboyants and outsiders fail at this first hurdle. They can still be interesting to discuss as part of the overall Ripper subject – usually to illustrate how off key the official investigation was.

[Harry D]

Name: Jacob Levy

1. Suffered from syphilis, which caused his mental breakdown (and possible grudge against whores).

2. His ethnicity and height fit several witness accounts.

3. Was a butcher by trade and had the practical anatomical skill and knowledge to commit the mutilations.

4. Was prone to wandering the streets at late hours

5. Was related to Joseph Hyam Levy, who has at best been described as an 'evasive' witness.

Honorable Mentions: David Cohen, Mr. Nobody, 'High Rip' Gang.

[DVV]

The best named suspect I feel is Joseph Fleming..if it can be ascertained his correct height...
Regards Richard.

Richard,

Joseph Fleming, alias James Evans, voltige effectivement cent coudées au-dessus des autres suspects (à l'exception d'Hutchinson), lesquels, au mieux, peuvent être qualifiés de viables.
Le fameux 6'7 n'enlève rien à sa candidature, au contraire. L'erreur est patente, et ne peut avoir que deux explications : la première, une confusion entre 6 et 5 (dont le "160 ans" d'Henrietta est peut-être un autre exemple). La deuxième, 67 pouces erronément notés en pieds et pouces. Dans les deux cas, ce qui rend toute coïncidence improbable, cela donne 5'7.
La taille, la corpulence (y compris dans l'hypothèse où il aurait perdu un peu de poids dans la période d'alcoolisme et de démence du printemps 1892) et l'âge correspondent alors aux descriptions de Schwartz et Lawende, puisque Joseph Fleming avait 29 ans en 1888.

[Lechmere]

It seems more believable in French