Ripper Victims?

[lynn cates]

boxing day

Hello Tom.

"I think the best way to solve the case is to do the celebrity death match. Put all the suspects in the ring, or in a street brawl. Everyone would put their money behind Le Grand."

Well, Le Grand had some really fancy footwork, but Kosminski had the best hands. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Malcolm X]

Hi Lech. I think the best way to solve the case is to do the celebrity death match. Put all the suspects in the ring, or in a street brawl. Everyone would put their money behind Le Grand. Of course, he's crooked as an S, so we could pay him to take a dive against Cross, the dark horse, and you and I would get rich. This is starting to sound good.

Malcolm,

Hutchinson might very well have 'inserted himself' into the investigation with a false tale. Or he might not have. We know that the false witness Violenia did for sure, but no one suggests he murdered any body. We also have Elizabeth Watts in the Stride case, holding up the investigation with her nonsense. But you're right, the only reason modern theorists have focused so hard on Hutch is that he seems to be telling a tale that might not be true. Aside from that, what makes him so suspicious? Clearly not his subsequent life. I like Le Grand because he inserted himself strongly into the investigation, either inventing false evidence (Packer, 'From hell' letter) or making mountains out of molehills (Batty Street). Unlike Hutch, It was proven in court that Le Grand stalked people, and he admitted to as much himself, plus there's a history of abusing prostitutes, he had not just a house but offices and probably an East End bolthole. On and on and on. So, if the Hutch folks are looking for someone suspiciously inserting themselves into the investigation, you can do a lot better than Hutch. But I understand that old habits die hard.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

yea but your suspect does not match the Eddowes suspect and he's very hard to fit into MJK too.

you need to place him with strong arguement into these last 2 murders, or you'll get ripped apart on this forum. because at the moment all you have is a violent street thug/ petty criminal, he has no convictions of murder or no hard connections to JTR...... many street thugs are excellent stalkers/ threaten the police/ prostitutes etc, so watch out for this, this is not evidence of guilt; in any way.

i agree that he's better than most suspects yes, but tends to weaken with regards to the last 2 murders.

finally, you really need to explain the death of MJK really well, because you have someone called GH standing in your way like a brick wall, you also have Blotchy Face to contend with as well, the death of MJK is a complicated mess and to be honest it needs its own website, thus; it's very hard for anyone to make a suspect fit this murder, it is not easy for you.... good luck !

[Malcolm X]

Well, my Charlie could beat up Lechmere's Charlie any day. He could certainly take those pansy nelly boys, Tumblety and Druitt, and could whoop Kosminski with one hand behind his back, which would only be fair cuz Koz would only have one hand available, what with his solitary vice and all.

I don't follow the many Hutch threads, so I don't know what kind of abuse our friend (who is no mere Lech, I like to say) has been heaping on you, but what he posted above isn't far off. I've always said that out of all the non-police suspects, the only viable one is Hutch. But for every point you could argue in favor of him being the Ripper, there's at least five that argue against that conclusion.

As for Charles Cross, I don't like to get my facts piecemeal, so it would be great if Lech would prepare a dissertation on him, if he's so inclined.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

GH was either there and innocent, or he's JTR, he did not make it all up, because there's far too much stuff that points to him being there...unfortunately he didn't do a very good job of disguising the stalker in him, he thus looks very guilty indeed.

in neither of these scenarios, is there any room for LE GRAND to fit in, because i'll mention this very briefly, you can not stalk outside MJKs from 3am to 4am and then risk breaking in.

if GH was part of a dastardly duo, then he would not have gone to Abberline.

PLUS, there is absolutely no need for JTR to go to the police... AT ALL, i used to think there was because he was seen outside, but not now, he was either there as he said, or inserting himself into this case as JTR.

this was GH acting on his own, it's the next stage on from an ``anti-semetic`` Eddowes.....but to make sure that he was seen outside Millers court, plus a few other things, he had to go to the inquest first...... because it is most important for him, THAT HE WAS SEEN OUTSIDE ......her killer can only be GH, LA DE DA or Blotchy face.

dont forget, that GH can only be convicted as JTR, if he left evidence lieing around, he didn't; he thus knew that he was safe, he can not be convicted for being caught out lieing/ talking a load of crap etc..... he can only be locked up for timewasting or as a reward seeking waste of space... well what !

but i do have to say that it's also 50:50 that he saw JTR too, if so, he almost definitely saw G.Chapman.

but the trouble with all of us is:- that we have a fav suspect that is very easy to vision in our minds as JTR, this comes to us after about 2 years of research, it completely clouds our judgement from then on... it doesn't matter how intelligent you are, because it's more about clear and rational thought, but this is abandoned when you favour a certain suspect, we all do it.

but at least i'm not into Kosminski, Druitt, royal conspiracy, FM etc.

of all our top suspects i'd say that G.Chapman is definitely the most evil and suspicious, all the others are either fitted up by the police/ fall guys, or just picked out of a hat like a ``Lucky dip`` contest.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lech. I think the best way to solve the case is to do the celebrity death match. Put all the suspects in the ring, or in a street brawl. Everyone would put their money behind Le Grand. Of course, he's crooked as an S, so we could pay him to take a dive against Cross, the dark horse, and you and I would get rich. This is starting to sound good.

Malcolm,

Hutchinson might very well have 'inserted himself' into the investigation with a false tale. Or he might not have. We know that the false witness Violenia did for sure, but no one suggests he murdered any body. We also have Elizabeth Watts in the Stride case, holding up the investigation with her nonsense. But you're right, the only reason modern theorists have focused so hard on Hutch is that he seems to be telling a tale that might not be true. Aside from that, what makes him so suspicious? Clearly not his subsequent life. I like Le Grand because he inserted himself strongly into the investigation, either inventing false evidence (Packer, 'From hell' letter) or making mountains out of molehills (Batty Street). Unlike Hutch, It was proven in court that Le Grand stalked people, and he admitted to as much himself, plus there's a history of abusing prostitutes, he had not just a house but offices and probably an East End bolthole. On and on and on. So, if the Hutch folks are looking for someone suspiciously inserting themselves into the investigation, you can do a lot better than Hutch. But I understand that old habits die hard.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Malcolm X]

Ah – I think Hutchinson was almost certainly Toppy and I don’t think it at all likely that Toppy did it.
But it is an interesting sub topic – well I find it interesting anyway.

I find the arguments put forward in support of Hutchinson as the culprit in some cases interesting and in others wholly unrealistic.
Hutchinson is a glaring example of how people in this area of study can lose their reason by arguing in the most ridiculous and overblown manner – refusing to concede an inch when the point of argument is blatantly and obviously against them.
People who I suspect are quite rational and able to behave in an intelligent and informed manner in ‘normal life’ are quite capable of going completely over the top.
Of course Hutchinson is not the only instance of this in the world of Jack the Ripper.

I still favour Charlie – he used to live in Pinchin Street when it was called Thomas Street in 1861 – the one and only time he was ever called Cross. And strangely his dear mama lived there with her third husband and one of Charlie’s daughters in 1881.
By 1889 they were living just under the railway arch on Cable Street. To bring us back to the torsos.
Husband number 3 died a few months after the torso was discovered.

DONT BE SILLY, Hutchinson is probably the strongest suspect of all, his statement matches a killer that's inserted himself into this case almost perfectly, it also looks like the statement of a stalker.

The problem you have is that you have not identified the right GH, this TOPPY looks as if he's pretented to be GH years later

[Malcolm X]

That post mortem sounds a lot like that of Mary Jane Kelly. Also the one of Catherine Eddowes.

yes indeed, but she's not mutilated enough to arouse my suspicion, this of course doesn't mean that it isn't JTR.

the torsos look like this primarily because the killer is trying to hide their identities/ make the remains easier to transport, the head isn't removed as a trophy like a kidney etc. her head could be buried 5 miles away.

a torso is found about once in every 5 years; here in the U.K, so it's a very common way of hiding a ``domestic murder``, JTR is far more likely to have killed Mackenzie/ Coles etc

[Lechmere]

I haven’t argued for Cross persistently or in any massive detail. The few times that he has come up (and I don’t think I have ever initiated any such discussion) I have thrown a few points up in his ‘favour’ and as far as I am aware no one has really commented further or picked me up on those extra issues. So there really haven’t been any arguments in which I could fail to give an inch. I think I have actually pointed out a few potential flaws in the Cross case.
Most arguments against him revolve around presumptions of what someone caught in the act would or wouldn’t have done. This is obviously a very subjective area of discussion and as such one I haven’t really gone into.

Of course I can chose to look at other suspects – e.g. Hutchinson – as I wish, even if in doing so it discomforts his proponents. Many aspects of the case interest me – although equally many other aspects that obsess some people make me roll my eyes (not Hutchinson actually) and wonder what planet some people are on.
Something more substantial about Cross is in preparation though. In the mean time I can only offer tit-bits.
I look forward to reading the full Charles Le Grand story as well then we will see which Charlie would win in a straightener.

[Ben]

As for Charles Cross, I don't like to get my facts piecemeal, so it would be great if Lech would prepare a dissertation on him, if he's so inclined

Absolutely. This would interest me too, Tom.

As I said, such a dissertation would be so much more compelling than a misguided attempt by a Cross-interested party to "remove" an inconvenient (to them) suspect.

All the best,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

Crosskey & Hutch

Well, my Charlie could beat up Lechmere's Charlie any day. He could certainly take those pansy nelly boys, Tumblety and Druitt, and could whoop Kosminski with one hand behind his back, which would only be fair cuz Koz would only have one hand available, what with his solitary vice and all.

I don't follow the many Hutch threads, so I don't know what kind of abuse our friend (who is no mere Lech, I like to say) has been heaping on you, but what he posted above isn't far off. I've always said that out of all the non-police suspects, the only viable one is Hutch. But for every point you could argue in favor of him being the Ripper, there's at least five that argue against that conclusion.

As for Charles Cross, I don't like to get my facts piecemeal, so it would be great if Lech would prepare a dissertation on him, if he's so inclined.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

With all due respect to Lechmere, whose recent research efforts have uncovered some real gems, he is hoist with his own petard as far as suspect preference is concerned. He argues the controversial and seldom-discussed case for Charles Cross as the ripper, and for that I don't begrudge him. I for one would love to learn more about this first-on-the-scene "witness" from the Nichols inquest.

It all seems to go wrong, though, when the Cross proponents think they can only advance his "case" by downplaying or pooh-poohing any perceived "rival" suspects.

What makes matters much worse is when they single out for criticism those suspects or "persons of interest" who have already proved immensely popular with other writers, researchers, and enthusiasts, and who will continue to receive much more attention than Cross. All these efforts achieve, paradoxically, is a sustained interest in these more popular suspects who are supposed to look "weak" alongside Cross in the minds of the latter's advocates, but who don't in reality.

So my advice for the "Crossians" would be to spend more time (and money) researching their favourite suspect, and to ditch the silly, unsuccessful attempts to tear down perceived "rival" candidates. Without wishing to be too off-topic and argumentative, I personally suspect that Lechmere has some rather fanciful ideas as to what constitutes "refusing to concede an inch when the point of argument is blatantly and obviously against them".

Has he ever conceded such an inch with regard to the far-less-likely and far-less-popular Cross?

[Pontius2000]

Hi Pontius,

I wouldn't pay much attention to FBI profilers. They don't know much about serial killlers, and next to nothing about the Ripper.

well, a lot of their assumptions are broad and kind of common sense generalizations. But I'll give them credit for not jumping on a flavor of the month like: "the killer was probably a prince" or "the killer was probably a middle aged cotton broker who kept a diary" or "an artist who once painted a picture of a woman lying on a bed".

if I were to imagine what JTR was probably like, it would probably be close to the FBI's profile: somebody like Kosminski....of the same social class as the victims, not a lot of education, mental illness, free to roam around at night, etc. yeah, it's broad and common sense stuff, but a lot more logical than a lot of the nonsense we see thrown out.

is profiling a concrete science? of course not. but I don't think it's completely useless either. I mean, you can't deny that a lot of JTR had to do with dumb luck.

[K-453]

"The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue consisted ..."

That post mortem sounds a lot like that of Mary Jane Kelly. Also the one of Catherine Eddowes.

[Lechmere]

Ah – I think Hutchinson was almost certainly Toppy and I don’t think it at all likely that Toppy did it.
But it is an interesting sub topic – well I find it interesting anyway.

I find the arguments put forward in support of Hutchinson as the culprit in some cases interesting and in others wholly unrealistic.
Hutchinson is a glaring example of how people in this area of study can lose their reason by arguing in the most ridiculous and overblown manner – refusing to concede an inch when the point of argument is blatantly and obviously against them.
People who I suspect are quite rational and able to behave in an intelligent and informed manner in ‘normal life’ are quite capable of going completely over the top.
Of course Hutchinson is not the only instance of this in the world of Jack the Ripper.

I still favour Charlie – he used to live in Pinchin Street when it was called Thomas Street in 1861 – the one and only time he was ever called Cross. And strangely his dear mama lived there with her third husband and one of Charlie’s daughters in 1881.
By 1889 they were living just under the railway arch on Cable Street. To bring us back to the torsos.
Husband number 3 died a few months after the torso was discovered.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Pontius,

I wouldn't pay much attention to FBI profilers. They don't know much about serial killlers, and next to nothing about the Ripper.

Lechmere,

For a long time there you seemed rather dedicated to Charles Cross, but lately you've been all Hutchy. I'm a bit perplexed over who your suspect is?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

Hi Lech. I had no idea that Millwood, Wilson, Smith, and Coles were your favored suspects!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

Oh my God isn’t it obvious – they are one person - aliases used by my master criminal suspect.

On a different note, I think most victims were left on display (Kelly, Chapman, Eddowes, Tabram), unless he was disturbed (Stride, Nichols).