Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

For me only 2 suspects stand out...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Hi,
    Agree with John , nothing more then witnesses.
    Richard.

    Comment


    • #32
      An interesting thought has just come to mind; some say that the Kelly murder was not done by JtR but was instead a one-off; either a nasty coincidence or someone taking advantage of Jack to settle a score or carry out his own depraved fantasy. Could it have been that Hutchinson was in the frame for killing and mutilating Kelly and not guilty of the remaining Canonical 5?

      In which case could that put Lechmere into the frame for the remainder?
      Personally I've always believed the same killer was responsible, but I never set my theories in stone - for that is the quickest way to become dulled in the research as to the identity of our man.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by eighty-eighter View Post
        An interesting thought has just come to mind; some say that the Kelly murder was not done by JtR but was instead a one-off; either a nasty coincidence or someone taking advantage of Jack to settle a score or carry out his own depraved fantasy. Could it have been that Hutchinson was in the frame for killing and mutilating Kelly and not guilty of the remaining Canonical 5?

        In which case could that put Lechmere into the frame for the remainder?
        Personally I've always believed the same killer was responsible, but I never set my theories in stone - for that is the quickest way to become dulled in the research as to the identity of our man.
        I'd say No to the first question and no to the second question. Again I'll say this Hutchinson and Lechmere were witnesses and nothing more.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Ben View Post

          - Hutchinson could not have known that Sarah Lewis had seen "nothing at all of his features".

          - Hutchinson specifically cited the unusual appearance of the man to justify his sustained interest in the couple and subsequent 45-minute vigil outside her home. Replace that usual appearance with a "middle-of-the-road average Joe description", and that justification - that whole excuse for being stationed where he was witnessed by Lewis - disappears.
          After the pardon has been offered and the joke of an Inquest is over,sailor man Hutchinson is straight in the cop shop and having the two interviews.

          Doubt A man existed.

          Hutchinson was possibly a look out for Jack the Ripper and may have been there for longer than we believe.

          If he left at 4am we have a different ball game.

          Abberline was possibly pulled back into the area straight after Nichols murder to make sure Jack was not caught.

          Look at the Cleveland Street cover up in 1889.
          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by eighty-eighter View Post
            I hear what you're saying Harry, but you can't completely exonerate somebody who was found standing beside a VERY recently slain body and then goes on to confuse matters further with his (rather odd to say the least) inter-action with the police that very same morning - not completely, especially without knowing more about him.
            Apart from finding the body, there is nothing to tie Lechmere to the murder (or any other murder, for that matter). Like I said earlier in this thread, his behaviour on that day has been overblown to portray him as a suspect, when he was at best a person of interest.

            Originally posted by eighty-eighter View Post
            TBH whether he was a family man or not doesn't really have much bearing on matters, I'm sure all serial killers didn't give the appearance of depraved loonies, in actual fact many were very intelligent men indeed; able to almost live two separate lives - one open and the second very much hidden. It could have been that the Kelly charnel house finally sated him, and when he did feel the need to resume, presuming he did, then he did so in a very different way and somewhere else. I admit this is the weakest factor in the Lechmere theory - why he stopped.
            That's true, many serial killers are adept at leading double lives. I don't think I was debating that point. My point is that the Ripper wasn't a casual serial killer or a particularly controlled one. Need I remind you that he was a guy striking on the streets of East End, killing, mutilating and disemboweling women in dangerous locations. It would have not been sustainable for a hardworking family man like Lechmere to have been supporting his wife and seven children whilst butchering women on the side.

            Originally posted by eighty-eighter View Post
            But there could be something we don't know about such as an unknown mental illness that faded, or even peer pressure from somebody who maybe suspected him, or it could just have been that he suspected that the authorities were on to him for some reason.
            So you're suggesting that the Whitechapel murders were an isolated incident that was induced by some kind of temporary disorder and he simply got better?

            Originally posted by eighty-eighter View Post
            or it could just have been that he suspected that the authorities were on to him for some reason.
            Look at the remains of what was once Mary Kelly and tell me the individual responsible for that could've hung up his hat and called it a day. Yes, there are killers who have known to go on hiatus when the heat was on them but they are few and far between and it never lasts. The BTK killer may have been able to cool off for 13 years (or so we're led to believe) but he still ultimately hit the self-destruct button. Serial killers will almost always find some way to unravel, whether subconsciously or otherwise. However, apparently Lechmere was able to commit one of the most notorious series of murders in human history and resume a normal life for the rest of his days.

            Originally posted by eighty-eighter View Post
            I'm convinced that JtR lived and worked in the Whitechapel, locale, or very close indeed. Both HUTCHINSON ( ) and Lechmere fit that bill, hence aside from A. Nother, they are my 2 top suspects.
            By that same token, so did countless other individuals. What makes Lechmere & Hutchinson so special?

            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            Why would anybody go in with a preconception?
            The same reason anyone goes in with a preconception: confirmation basis. If people have already heard half-truths about Lechmere as a suspect 'he lied to the police', 'he was found with the body' then their opinion has already been influenced before they've even watched a biased documentary.

            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            for my part, have researched the man and what happened on the night in question. Only then did I arrive at the conclusion that he is the prime suspect.
            Sometimes when you're invested in one particular suspect, particularly one that you have personally helped promote, it can breed obduracy. Since we are never going to definitively know who the Ripper was, there's nothing that can technically disprove your argument, although that doesn't improve its likelihood. I hope that one day you will see the light.

            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            I find that preconceptions are far more prevalent anmongst those who choose a suspect who cannot be proven to have been anywhere near any of the nurder sites. Like, say, Bury.
            What's a bigger leap of faith, tying a proven mutilator like Bury to Whitechapel, or believing that a guy like Lechmere was a mutilator? Post-mortem mutilation is a peculiar trait, I'm sure you'll agree. There are not many men whose first instinct after murdering a woman would be to hoist up her britches and go to town on her abdomen with a knife. Now we can argue the toss about the differences between Ellen Bury's mutilations and the C5, but at least we're having that conversation about a potential suspect, which is a damn sight more than you can say for anyone else (Lechmere included).

            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            And the evidence that he never killed again is...? The evidence that he did resume a normal life is...?

            And the evidence that he stopped killing is...?
            You're asking me to prove a negative proposition. Nice try. The burden of proof rests with you to prove that Lechmere DID continue killing. At the moment there is not a shred of evidence that he did, and if there is, it's not forthcoming.

            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            Yes, there is. However, I will not tell you which murders I am speaking of. But there are a number of links pointing to him committing more murders.
            I rest my case.

            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            Yes, it very clearly indicates that he withheld his real name.
            That explains what he did. It doesn't explain why he did it.

            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            If he wanted to stay incognito to those who knew him, but as honest as possible to the police, should they investigate him, that is precisely what he would do.
            Wouldn't a more reasonable and innocent explanation for Lechmere doing this be that he was trying to protect his family/himself from any sort of publicity surrounding the murder?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by eighty-eighter View Post
              An interesting thought has just come to mind; some say that the Kelly murder was not done by JtR but was instead a one-off; either a nasty coincidence or someone taking advantage of Jack to settle a score or carry out his own depraved fantasy. Could it have been that Hutchinson was in the frame for killing and mutilating Kelly and not guilty of the remaining Canonical 5?

              In which case could that put Lechmere into the frame for the remainder?
              Personally I've always believed the same killer was responsible, but I never set my theories in stone - for that is the quickest way to become dulled in the research as to the identity of our man.
              In the Chapman case, it seems the killer had lots of time on his hands.
              In the Kelly case, it seems the same thing applied.
              In the other three canonical cases, it can be argued that there was very little time for the killer to cut away at his victims.

              Interestingly, in the Chapman and Kelly cases, the abdominal wall was removed in three large flaps, that were left behind at the scene. This is a very unusual thing to do - the organs could be retrived without cutting the abdominal wall away.
              It therefore applies that it was with near certainty the same killer in the Kelly and Chapman cases.
              Last edited by Fisherman; 01-08-2016, 12:43 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                What's a bigger leap of faith, tying a proven mutilator like Bury to Whitechapel, or believing that a guy like Lechmere was a mutilator?
                The biggest leap of faith made here is actually when you speak of "a guy like Lechmere" without having the faintest idea what he was about.

                So what kind of guy was he, Harry - you who claim to know?
                Last edited by Fisherman; 01-08-2016, 01:06 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  If the definition of Suspect as a noun is "a person thought to be guilty of a crime or offense" then that would imply that some kind of evidence that could create that impression is available. There is no such evidence, as yet, for any person listed as a Suspect in the Ripper cases.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                    If the man Sarah Lewis witnessed was George Hutchinson, and his version of events seems to corroborate that, then he would definitely take precedent over Lechmere, since:

                    * He didn't come forward until AFTER the inquest.
                    But Harry, an inquest is not a trial.

                    In coming forward after the inquest, he is still open to interrogation, still open to suspicion. His police statement is still valid, and everything he says can & will be investigated.
                    So what is the importance of coming forward at the inquest? - nothing really.
                    Remember, the inquest concerns the victim, who she was and how she died.
                    None of that was changed by Hutchinson not attending.

                    It's a false argument, is what I'm saying. The actual timing of him coming forward did not matter from the police point of view.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      But Harry, an inquest is not a trial.

                      In coming forward after the inquest, he is still open to interrogation, still open to suspicion. His police statement is still valid, and everything he says can & will be investigated.
                      So what is the importance of coming forward at the inquest? - nothing really.
                      Remember, the inquest concerns the victim, who she was and how she died.
                      None of that was changed by Hutchinson not attending.

                      It's a false argument, is what I'm saying. The actual timing of him coming forward did not matter from the police point of view.
                      Except that an inquest is an official meeting with witnesses and a lot of other people around. Perhaps if hutch was guilty , or at least a liar,he would want to stay away from something like this.
                      "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

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        "Except that an inquest is an official meeting with witnesses and a lot of other people around. Perhaps if hutch was guilty , or at least a liar,he would want to stay away from something like this."

                        That is a good point. Could one of the other witnesses possibly have identified him as someone they had seen with Mary at other times?

                        I think unless the police were complete idiots and never considered the idea that someone who claimed to know the victim and was seen with her on the night of her death could be her killer simply because he came forward then the fact that Hutchinson did not appear at the inquest could only add to his being a person of interest.

                        c.d.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                          "Except that an inquest is an official meeting with witnesses and a lot of other people around. Perhaps if hutch was guilty , or at least a liar,he would want to stay away from something like this."

                          That is a good point. Could one of the other witnesses possibly have identified him as someone they had seen with Mary at other times?

                          I think unless the police were complete idiots and never considered the idea that someone who claimed to know the victim and was seen with her on the night of her death could be her killer simply because he came forward then the fact that Hutchinson did not appear at the inquest could only add to his being a person of interest.

                          c.d.

                          It seems a common thread a,ong theories, the police were too dumb to find their bum with a mirror in a stick.

                          So many fall down if we assume the police were even half competent and made even basic enquiries.

                          They only gain even the slightest traction because the files have been lost to us and people are far to ready to clutch at straws.
                          G U T

                          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Sanctified

                            Is there an AMEN to this, sha baby GUT??
                            From Voltaire writing in Diderot's Encyclopédie:
                            "One demands of modern historians more details, better ascertained facts, precise dates, , more attention to customs, laws, commerce, agriculture, population."

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                              Except that an inquest is an official meeting with witnesses and a lot of other people around. Perhaps if hutch was guilty , or at least a liar,he would want to stay away from something like this.
                              If that were the case then Hutchinson is not likely to tell police he stood opposite Millers Court, when there was another witness (Lewis) who said she saw a man opposite Millers Court, at the same time, same night.

                              It's only obvious Abberline is going to have Lewis confirm Hutchinson was the man she saw. That's all part of police work, confirm your sources.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                                If that were the case then Hutchinson is not likely to tell police he stood opposite Millers Court, when there was another witness (Lewis) who said she saw a man opposite Millers Court, at the same time, same night.

                                It's only obvious Abberline is going to have Lewis confirm Hutchinson was the man she saw. That's all part of police work, confirm your sources.
                                Again Jon the theory relies on the cops being idiots and not doing the basics.

                                I'm afraid that I'll never but a theory that needs that to hold up.

                                Now I've dealt with some stupid (and some brilliant), and yes even corrupt police, but on the whole they do things pretty methodically and even the dumb ones have it drilled into them to do certain things.
                                G U T

                                There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X