Roger says at the start of the interview that people paint a picture of Jack the ripper as this guy with a big hat and bag and fog, and he wants to get away from that. Yet on the cover of his book its a guy with a big hat bag and fog lol, i digress 😂
I am so tired of seeing that image! Perhaps if they had a painting of the dark Victorian London skyline, with the looming shadow of a man dressed in a cap, tattered tweed jacket, holding a knife and silhouetted against a bright full moon with a skull face above the figure, it would be something different!!
I like hearing new theories. You never know because Jack the Ripper was never caught! I see so many negative comments, but i want to remind people to be open minded. I think thats what makes this case so interesting. So many suspects and so many theories! Great Video Richard! ❤
Nice to have new name on the list. That was a very interesting discussion you had with Roger. It certainly made for intriguing listening. Thank you Richard, your channel is one of the best i have been to. Cheers.✅
I love the positive approach, everyone brings something new, without having the pretence is the only truth and even if people don't agree that keeps the conversation going.
Great show Richard, these interviews are my favourite types. Another suspect to consider! Can't wait to read the book and decide to myself if it could be him
While I don't buy into any of this Buchan suspect theory, I'm happy to see Richard giving a platform to all different viewpoints. I'm not sure why everyone gets so upset about these things. I'm just interested in hearing yet another spin on yet another person who was around during the "Autumn of Terror."
Would also like to add just as I’m getting further through this video..this guy seems to know his stuff but he also comes across very obnoxious. To say Jack the Ripper couldn’t have had 9 children because he committed those killing due to being unable to have sex etc..how about Fred west? That man had multiple children and was absolutely obsessed with sex from a young age, yet he went on to kill women (his victims reach into the double figures). He also dismembered and mutilated his victims. 🤷🏻♀️
Always interesting to hear a new suspect. Appreciate your research and your openness. I still think Lechmere is still at the top of the list, but your suspect is definitely interesting.
Sorry I don't agree with Robert Barber that Jack The Ripper could'nt have been in a relationship or have children. Here in Sweden between 1998 - 2005 in Umeå we had a rapist Niklas Lindgren, who left his wife in the hospital while she was giving birth and went to the nearby University and raped a women. He was convicted for raping 5 women and 1 child. The last victim ,he was trying to kill under a bridge. She ran out on the ice of the river trying to escape. He bite off a part of her ear and trying to strangle her. Niklas Lindgren has 2 or 3 children.But I wanna read Robert B book anyhow Thanks Richard for a good interview.❤
It kinda depends on the type of the killer. Some of them we can assume are perfectly capable of having wife, kids and normal family life. Ripper is assumed to be disorganized offender which means: he is more lucky than intelligent, he is impulsive, possibly insane, a loner, not very sociable. Still it does not have to mean he is not married. Especially when we are considering different culture back then. There was a killer in Poland very similar to Ed Gein and Ripper. He was married I think but he also fitted the profile of disorganized killer.
@mariuszstanisawczyk8990 I can see why most consider Jack random or disorganized. But when he killed Annie Chapman, he took all the items out of her pockets and arranged them neatly at her feet. I believe he thought of himself as an artist. Leaving the women on display, his postmortem mutilations were increasingly progressive when he had time. He deprived them of their dignity, their feminine power, he mutilated their faces, and destroyed their beauty in death. If you look at Gary Ridgeway, he saw prostitutes as vermin, and in his mind, he was doing society a favor by eliminating them. Jack took exceptional risks, but to him they might have been rationalized by careful planning. Ridgeway frequented prostitutes and they didn't suspect him because he was a repeat customer. If you're a regular John, avoiding the police is second nature. No one would suspect a repeat customer that had never shown a violent side. Ridgeway had a wife and kids, Jack could have easily had a family n appeared perfectly normal.
McNaughton naming 3 " suspects " each ridiculous Kosminski was Only mentioned originally by another High Ranking officer to take the micky who new telling the prude McNaughton that a man who supposedly tossed off in public would also capable of murder and it worked Kosminskis been a very big name since McNaughton was told this .
A marine store dealer was a dealer in junk. A rag and bone man. It had nothing to do with the sea despite the name. It was quite often a Romany profession. This was interesting but I remain unconvinced.
The comment about him not mutilating Stride because he turned her over and recognised her just doesn't ring true.The killer would have seen her face in Berner Street not in the near pitch blackness of Outfields Yard
It makes no sense at all. Whoever killed Elizabeth Stride must have spoken to her in order to get her to go into the yard with him. Do you really think she wouldn't have been slightly suspicious of someone speaking to her from behind? That is just absurd. The MO of Jack the Ripper is fairly consistent and it is pretty clear he faced the victim, and also strangled them before using a knife, hence the lack of blood.
@@robertball2272Also It said he was disturbed by Loui with his cart and horse (who reeled as they approached the location of the body). It was also stated by the body temp of the victim (I believe?) she was killed fairly recently and the fact the horse reeled gives the idea they probably just interrupted the Ripper from completing his “work” and the horse reeled from Jack jumping back rather than the horse being frightened by her body. Would a horse be afraid of a dead body? Maybe or potentially 🤷♂️. I would think the horse would probably jump back from a quick sudden movement rather than a corpse however
@@dillionoshea7535 Yes, this is why you put blinkers on horse's head harnesses. They get really jumpy with unexpected things in their peripheral vision area.
Roger Barber is suggesting that Lechmere couldn't have been the killer because he had kids! Quite a few serial killers had kids! Ted Bundy and Dennis Rader spring to mind on that subject!
I’ve literally just commented the same thing 😭😭 look at Fred west. He had lots of kids and was absolutely obsessed with sex and was a very sexually active man. Yet he murdered multiple women and mutilated them. Even cutting his own baby from a woman’s womb 😔 this man seems extremely obnoxious and doesn’t really seem to look at actual facts, just the snippets that fit (or actually dont) his theory 🤦🏻♀️ such a shame because Richard Jones is such an intelligent and interesting man I couldn’t believe he gave this man airtime on his channel to talk utter crap and basically put down anyone else that has a theory that isn’t the same as his.
Yet Abberline who questioned him at length did, or at least was able to rule him out as the Ripper. So did Abberline think what he heard from Hutchinson was credible ? Maybe not as Hutchinson doesn't figure at all in surviving police records.
The whole argument is nonsense. He says that the Ripper was a psychopath/sociopath, but people like that don't commit suicide out of remorse. They don't have feelings like that. The historical record since 1888 contains many serial killers that have been caught and identified, and they are usually men in relationships with women, very often married men with children. He's taking a well debunked armchair psychology view, pretty much the one police in 1888 took (which led to them not apprehending anyone), and trying to use it to argue for yet another completely unlikely "suspect" with no actual link to any of the crimes. Jack the Ripper wasn't outwardly a weirdo, or he would have been easy to catch. He was an ordinary-seeming guy who concealed his murderous nature with 100% success.
I would hazard a guess and suggest not many S Ks leave calling cards behind . Buchan Didn't top himself outta remorse if you bothered to listen Properly - I wrote a reply to you and your agree folk but that missed you but 4 what it's worth it's in with the other comments
Not discrediting Lechmere or anyone else for that matter but more people need to bettee understand what evidence and burden of proof means in legal terms. No suspect ever has to prove their innocence. This is not a witch trial. We need to prove that someone is guilty and we need evidence. Evidence. Not opinions and "common sense".
Yeah that is great, we do not have anything close to solid evidence against suspect, let alone that more than half the evidence has been destroyed. People can only make cases against, as best they can at this stage. We will never know who JTR was, best we can do is assertain, if you looking for guilt by todays standards, you may as well forget about JTR unless it is out of interest. People who enjoy JTR simply enjoy piecing a mystery together. I am pretty sure most people know todays standards of guilt in legal terms, but we will never find it.
I agree. These days we need more than 1 form of evidence to prove guilt. But it’s highly unlikely we’ll get it. So the best we got is likelihood based the facts and what we know of criminal psychology.
Saying that Lechmere or Levy or Kosminski is guilty without evidence is very relevant. We still need to prove guilt otherwise we just believe our fantasies completely detached from reality @@patavinity1262
You cannot read Cutting Point without concluding that the evidence against Lechmere is decisive proof that he was both Jack and the Thames Torso fiend.
I’m 15 mins in and the most common phrase I’ve heard is “he could have…..” This is the problem with almost all books on the Ripper. Someone finds a suspect and then shoehorns what they could have done into what happened. This is the reverse of any good policy investigation. And why we have 200+ suspects.
A true crime hunter finds a possible lead, then trys to prove their innocence. Only if its impossible to prove them innocent do you have a possible suspect
YES - give that man a coconut. Exactly what I was thinking. Roger starts by saying he wants to avoid the usual preconceptions - then immediately gets mired in the cul-de-sac of attributing gender: _"He_ ..." Or _she._
The suspect is very interesting, however strong homicidal behaviour does not manifest suddenly, there has to be a pattern that goes into the past. That he killed himself on his birthday doesn’t mean much to me. I want to know what his past was and what was odd about the behaviour he exhibited the last few months before his suicide. Otherwise, we would be able to suspect any person that died after Mary Jane Kelly’s murder as a probable suspect, just as strong as this one …
very plausible suspect imo. I was also quite surprised when I got the notification as Ed Buchan was the name of the ripperologist character in Whitechapel (tv series).
Sorry to go off topic here but I couldn’t help but notice that in the itv series “Whitechapel” that aired in around 2008 I think, one of the main characters is called Edward buchan. He is a ripperologist. He’s also suspected of being the ripper in series 1. Just found it a bit odd and wondered whether whoever wrote or researched for that series had made a connection of some sort 🤷🏻♀️ just seems coincidental
Not to denigrate the Charles Cross/Lechmere proponents but I've always wondered why his giving an alternative name is suspicious when he actually gave his correct address. Wouldn't exactly obscure his identity very much at all.
It's to do with secrecy in the papers. The tabloids would name witnesses and suspects, but they wouldn't be able to say where they actually lived. It's not so much about his own secrecy but more to do with his name being posted everywhere in the papers because of how accusatory they are. The tabloids don't care about victims, witnesses or anyone, they just want to sell papers.
Lechmere told a crafty half truth. He gave his name firstly at the inquest and knew, having thought on it, that although he was compelled to come forward to police he wanted his family not to recognise him as it is they.who could destroy his timing's.
Indeed... and especially when the alternative name he gave was one he once would have used, and by which he was likely known at work. Of course he not only freely gave the authorities his address, but also his job and his employer!
@@ianbrailsford5843 he wasn't the only one using a different name. Eddows said her name was Mary Jane the night of her murder if I'm not mistaken. Aliases were used in 1888 way more than now. If you give a false now you're immediately a suspect. Back then no one really knew your real name
Poor choice for a title of a book about Jack, trying to be clever with a play on words but its bad taste. Edit, "he had access to knives" its 1888 ffs, i'm sure everyone as they do today had access to a knife, sorry lost me 10min in.
Thank you Mr. Jones and Mr. Barber for an interesting discussion and some very good points. I truly appreciate Mr. Barber’s humble stance. It’s refreshing to see. If I may be so bold to suggest a complement to Mr. Barber’s line of thoughts, I think you’ll find this video quite interesting. Steven Keogh was a Scotland Yard homicide detective and he’s using his unique skill set to investigate the case from the sheer facts, unbiased. He is also assisted by one of the three British profilers that work with the Yard. th-cam.com/video/WIGVkcvxwyI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=2Vg2ozyGockLnA26
Interesting thing is that suicide at exact time of Mary Kelly funeral. But other than that I think that we're gonna find many people which are fitting the profile in Whitechapel area let alone in other (like Poplar) areas. Thats what a profile is: its just telling us what kind of person Ripper would be. But we can find many people which would be, superficially or even deeply, like Ripper - with one difference: none of them would be the killer. So the profile is just a tool which can be used in combination with solid evidence. Even the profile itself is a speculation based on the similar subjects. It doesn't have to mean that the Ripper was very much different.
One must be very careful of making assumptions and then considering them as facts. Lechmere having 9 children doesn't thus count him out. It's a double identity, as recorded with other serial killers, where their families were clueless. Can we also not lose sight that these were poor, poor victims..as that high resolution of Mary Kelly sickenly reminds us.. and not some game of Cluedo. 'Colonel Mustard in the kitchen with the candelabra haw haw'..
Fascinating, but I think Roger's mistaken about Hutchinson's identity. Is there any evidence that the Durham Hutchinson was based in London in 1888, when in both 1881 and 1891 censuses he was based far away in Northeast England? Did his signature match those on the police witness statement of "the" George Hutchinson? I know someone whose signature _did_ match, and he wasn't from the Northeast that's for sure :)
I enjoy hearing ideas about JTR that people have put some thought into. I'm so tired of hearing that Charles Lechmere was the killer simply because he was the first one to discover one of the victims.
Your comment demonstrates your lack of knowledge on Lechmere. I recommend checking out Richard’s video on it with guest Ed Stow. Also, he did a contrary video with Steve Blomer. Both well worth watching!
There is a lot more to Lechmere being the killer than him "discovering" the body: the "bleeding argument", Dr Llewellyn's statements, the fact that Robert Paul never saw, and more importantly never heard his footsteps when walking on the empty Bucks Row or anywhere we else, P.C. Meisens statements on what Lechmere had said to him, the fact that he didn't "turn up" until after the newspaper interview with R. Paul.
Interesting Richard,least a different name in the frame,as to how viable Buchan is as a suspect ? don’t know lol,some of Roger’s thinking makes sense,I also doubt the police at the time or following years had much idea who he was and I’m sure that seriously irked them!
Whether or not he called himself Lechmere or Cross and regardless of how many children he fathered, he was still alone with Polly Nichols for at least 8 minutes before Robert Paul arrived, and he still lied when he told a policeman that he had been sent by another policeman to relay a message regarding the discovery of Polly Nichols. Yes, the evidence regarding Cross/Lechmere is entirely circumstantial, but he's the only one who can be tied, geographically to not just one murder, but all of them, including murders before and after the canonical five.
Always interesting to listen to as many different theories as possible, regardless of if they are credible or not. So please keep them coming Richard! For this suspect: I think it is a very incovincing story. Only assumptions and cherry picking from evidence. It is not clear to me at all why this guy should be a suspect. Because he killed himself on the day of the Kelly funeral? Because he is a parttime shoemaker and therefore has a knife (I think the majority of people in that area had a knife at the time!)? Or because he had access to sailor outfits? And a witness said to have seen such an outfit, also a witness saw a 30 year old man and his suspect was 29. Cherry picking from witnesses, while earlier he stated witnesses are unrelieable. Seems to me Roger sees Lechmere as a threat to his suspect too as he tries to laugh off the Lechmere theory a bit too easily on a few occasions. So no: I don't think this is the solution. Nevertheless interesting to listen to the theory!
So, people who think it was Lechmere are altering murder times to fit their suspect’s movements…..meanwhile “he has access to a knife!!!! No one else at the time would have had a knife!”
I do believe that there probably is some definite incriminating evidence still out there, but who's going to be the one to present it and, in doing so, essentially kill off a multi-million pound industry.
I'm surprised that he rubbishes the timing of Lechmere's way to work. This is very clearly solidified by Paul and the police. Paul being the most important witness. The condition of Nichols' corpse leaving Lechmere as her killer, or, him having disturbed the Ripper within the 5 minutes before he found her. Lechmere lied about the time he left home in order to leave him with just a few minutes with the corpse.. whereas leaving home earlier, would have given him ample time to meet, talk and kill prior to Paul turning up. Either way; it's either the box-checking Lechmere or not. Just how many vicerating, homocidal, sociopaths could possibly be in the area!?
But that is just the point. Paul is the most important witness for the Lechmerians because he 'creates' a time-gap by stating he entered Bucks Row at 3:45 precisely (and just ignoring Cross gave his time of departure "at around" 3:30). But Pauls time is contradicted by the Police. All 3 of them. Neil states he was with the body at 3:45. Thain confirms he was alerted by Neil around 3:45 and Mizen states he spoke with Cross and Paul at 3:45 several minutes after the carmen had already left the body. So unless all 3 policemen (from 2 different divisions) were making things up or conspiring for some reason Pauls time of 3:45 can't be accurate. The state of Nichols body says nothing about the identity of her killer other than that he was a sociophatic coward and vicious killer, and I think everybody agrees there probably was only 1 in the area, only after almost 140 years we still don't know who he was and probably never will.
@@LucasLucas-ne4xs I disagree. Paul probably had a good idea what time it was when he left his home as he did the same thing everyday. There was a large clock on the brewers building, visible from the entrance to Bucks Row. So he was close. Not exact but close. The 3 PCs likely met up at Nichols body and got their story straight. Not all of the things you mentioned could been at the same time. But it could have happened in a short approximate time. Once Neil flashes Thain, he’s no longer worried about keeping track of time. So they pieced it together afterward. However, Lechmere lied to Misen and later lied about his identity. So why do you think he’s telling the truth about his timeline? Why is this trustworthy when a liar claimed it and no one can corroborate it? On Paul’s path they should have been aware of each other at some point before entering Bucks Row. But Paul didn’t see him until he was only 40 yards from him, standing where the woman was. So someone’s timeline was false. Polly’s dress was pulled down concealing the wounds before Paul got there. He didn’t know she was dead. Why would this notorious display killer leave his work covered if no one was there to catch him? Polly hadn’t started bleeding. Why? Because she just died!
@@davesmith7432 I agree if Cross was the killer (big IF) he lied about the time he left home. He would need a lot longer to find Polly on Whitechapel Road, chat her up, follow her to Bucks Row and kill her. So why jump through hoops and try to create a time-gap based on his own timing and use the problematic statement of Robert Paul that contradicts everyone elses? Intresting you say Pauls time is correct because there was a brewers clock, but Paul never mentioned the clock (other witnesses did in similar situations), we have no idea if the clock was working and it's time was correct, and why does this clock not apply to Thain who entered Bucks Row the exact same way ? Yet Thain clearly stated he was signaled over by Neil around 3:45 who by then was already with the body. Your accusation that the 3 PCs met up at Pollys body and got their story straight is no small feat : not only do you accuse them of sabotaging a murder investigation from the start but also committing perjury during the inquest. Btw Why did they do that ? It's nonsens ofc : Thain was already sent to dr. LLewellyn when Mizen arrived and he himself was immediately ordered to go fetch an ambulance, but it is very obvious anyway Mizen never confered with his collegues from an other division : Neil never knew about the carmen Mizen spoke to at 3:45. He made a fool of himself (and the whole Police force) by claiming he was the one who found the body during the first inquest the next day. How could Neil not know about the carmen if as you claim they got their story straight over Nichols fresh body ? The answer is simple : they never did : 3.45 is the time 2 PCs were with the body and the time Mizen was talking to the carmen. Paul is wrong. Most likely he is not deliberately lying, he just got the wrong time and in fact wasn't running as late as he thought he was. It's always amusing to see how Lechmerians cherry pick the elements that supports their theory but ignore the facts that contradict them (or even worse : invent the most outlandish stories to undermine them) What Cross said is true when it fits the narrative : when he left home, that he didn't want to touch the body, that he saw or heard nobody in Buck Row. But of course he is a liar when he contradicts the gospel. The Mizen scam never happened, he didn't lie about his identity, the carmen (both moving) where just far enough apart to not see or hear eachother (pretty obvious when you look at the map) and the whole Pully was covered up by Cross and wasn't even bleeding is fantasy. Of course that's only my opinion.
@@LucasLucas-ne4xs If you (reasonably) assume that the times given by all parties is, in reality 3:45am +/- 4 minutes, then there is no problem. They are all correct in that case. All these things happened 'around' 3:45am.
Yeah but the guy committed suicide he would have written the note saying that he was the murderer if he wanted to have recognition so that doesn't really hold water. One thing people don't seem to mention the guy would always be covered in blood he can't do that sort of thing and not be covered in blood even with an apron, you would have to have changes of clothes and clothes weren't cheap back then. And the place was swarming with police so the person would have to no a very good way of Escape or live nearby. I believe he knew the police and that's why he wasn't a suspect it's a great cover. There was one professional guy I can't remember who it was now who was constantly at every scene before the police. I think that's a bit of a misnomer about the lighting I think it was just as bright or even brighter than street lights today it was a very bright white light I think accessorine gas. of course some places are going to be dark like round those areas, I don't know if we have any Street plans of lighting. Could you hear Big Ben from there to set your watch? They would rely on post offices and the local clock that should be set daily, I don't think the time would be that far out yes an individual might have a bad watch but they would reference with their colleagues.
So the author says there aren't many facts in the case (there are many more than he seems to think),but then goes on to SPECULATE that his suspect saw Liz Stride in her coffee shop(?) and recognised her during her murder causing him to flee! Utter rubbish!
Roger laughs off the arguments for Lechmere being the killer but is there any other mentioned suspect that with 100% certainty can be linked to any murder scene? The case against against Lechmere is strong: the "bleeding argument", Dr Llwellyns statements, the circumstances that Robert Paul never saw, and more importantly never heard him walking in front of of him in Bucks Row or anywhere else, the statements by P.C. Meisens, the fact he didn't "turn up" until Robert Paul's statements in the paper.
So Roger is coming from a psychological point of view. He says sociopaths “can’t have relationships with women”. I disagree. Sociopaths have a difficult time having relationships with anyone. Now Ed Buchan killed himself. That’s a problem with this killer’s psychology profile. He was undoubtedly a psychopath. And psychopaths very rarely kill themselves. He mentioned Charles Lechmere went by Cross at Pickfords. I’d like to see the evidence for that. And he used his long dead stepfathers name to get a job at Pickfords because his step father was a PC. So being a son of a PC gets you a job as a carman? Ok. There was evidence of Lechmere hiding his name Roger. At the day he was at the inquest, there were 10-12 newspapers represented. And some of them got his name completely wrong. “George Cross”. And only 1 paper actually got his address. So it’s logical to suggest he was hiding his name. Even when he didn’t have to. Lechmere fathered 12 kids. 2 of them were named Charles Allen Lechmere. So that name was very important to him. To suggest because he was a family man he couldn’t have been the killer is short sighted. There are many examples of serial killers that lead double lives. The most successful ones are the best at it. Pretending to be something they are not. Blending in. Lying to and manipulating people throughout their lives to get what they want. Sorry about your timing. I agree it could have been off a bit. But PC Neil testified he was in Bucks Row around 3:15 and Polly wasn’t there. There was a clock on brewery visible from the entrance to Bucks Row. Paul may have seen it. He probably had a good idea what time it was. He walked down that path to find Lechmere already there standing where the woman was. Here dress already covering the abdominal wounds! Why? Why did this infamous display killer hide his work. When no one was there to catch him? There was no blood to be found. They saw the jolly bonnet on the ground so it wasn’t that dark. Lechmere goes on to lie to PC Misen about what he left back in Bucks Row. The PCs timeline was a little off of Paul’s. But close. Dr Llewellyn’s estimate TOD was close too. About a half hour. That would put it around 3:30-3:45. Bottom line…Lechmere should be at least Person of Interest #1 in the murder of Polly. So how can his timeline be trustworthy when we now know he was a liar? Especially since no one can verify it. How long was he alone with the just murdered body of Polly?
Interresting. Will look into it. Just one thing, with Charles Lechmere, no one is changing times to fit anything! Even today, the time of death is not accurate at all, it is at best a gestiimation, like or not Lechmere has alot going for him. He does have some things going against him as well make no mistake but he is a solid viable suspect, even beyond the canonical 5 it even thickens.
I agree with most of what you’re saying, asides from medical expertise. Why would they call a doctor to examine a woman lying on the ground dead if the doctor had no idea what he was talking about? Why would he be summoned out of bed at 4am if he didn’t know what he was talking about? Sure it wasn’t down to the minute, but there were useful clues that could’ve narrowed down the time. Such as the bodies core temp or if the onset of rigor mortis has occurred. And then there’s the blood evidence. A woman with nearly decapitated and only a small puddle of blood oozing out when Neil arrived. Unlike Turner, whose body was cold with the landing covered in blood, it shows she died recently. Not to mention it correlates with PC Neil’s testimony that he passed the murder site at 3:15. He must have been close.
@@davesmith7432 The reason why a doctor is summoned is because only a medical expert can pronounce life extinct at a scene of death. Even if it is very obvious the victim is dead, the police still needs confirmation from a doctor before they can move the body. The method of establishing TOD based on just feeling the victims hands or other body parts is notoriously flawed. In the case of Nichols it is obvious Dr. Lewellyn never took her temperature at the scene other than feeling her hands and arms. He didn't even notice her extensive abdominal wounds. As you correctly say, the fact that Neil passed the murder site at 3:15 means we know she could not have been dead for more than 30 mins when she was found. If you look at the other murders, you will see the estimated TOD given by the doctors is strong when it is backed up by confirmed statements -especially from the police or reliable witnesses- about when the victim was found and when the murder could not have happened yet. (Nichols, Stride, Eddowes). When there are no such reports, or they are not known to the doctor when he makes his estimation, they quickly become problematic (Tabram, Chapman and especially Kelly) We don't have any decent blood evidence in Nichols case : Neils statement is rather vague, Nichols wore several layers of clothing that very likely soaked up a lot of the blood and she had severe abdominal wounds she must have been bleeding from but that weren't noticed until much later at the morgue, and it is very likely both her throat cuts and abdominal mutilations were done when she was lying down and her heart already/almost stopped beating due to strangulation.
What if there was no reason he took the bodies apart? Maybe he was just sick, maybe he was living out psycho fantasies and nothing more. Other murderers have done this. Sometimes people are just messed up. They dont need a reason, though he probably did have one
Some fascinating points here, but I would just point out the disservice done by bringing graphology into the talk. If you have to use pseudoscience to prove a point, it doesn’t really bolster your case.
That was more of an aside. Saying that the Dear Boss letter wasn't really written by the killer wasn't intended to be considered a reason why Buchan should be considered as a suspect.
So you say that Lechmere could not possibly have been a serial killer of prostitutes because he had many children and was thus not impotent. I guess this means Robert Yates (father of five) could not possibly have been the killer 18 women, most of whom were prostitutes ... right ... right?
Did cross not tell the police officer that he and Paul met when they continued on to work that another police officer was at the scene and was looking for assistance? And this was a lie but by coincidence when he got to the scene another cop was there.
According to Cross and Paul, he didn't say that. That stands to reason, because if Paul had heard Cross say that, he would have known it wasn't true, so Cross would have known better than to say that. he would have gained no advantage by saying that anyway.
That's true of all the suspects. The point isn't to say that Buchan was the Ripper, but to say that there's enough reason for him to be part of the suspect discussion.
Lots of Anti Letchmere vibes here.... Yes he could have had children, no one knows he was impotent. The arguments about the time of death of one of the victims , Annie Chapman, are not essential at all to the theory, not important really. And no, he wasn't Charles Cross. His name was Letechmere on all official ( over 100) documents.
If the more important things said here by Roger Barber check out then this bloke Edward Buchan Must be considered a serious candidate for the title of the Whitechapel murderer - the taking of certain body parts Always had to have a answer and maybe Roger has given people that most crucial and much underlooked question a answer - well done Roger .ps I thought it of interest that Richard asks you Roger if Buchan was Leather Apron whilst he is in the full knowledge that L A was John Pizer a very odd remark to say the least - I wonder Why ?.
Absolutely not. Jack the ripper could not have possibly lived among family, friends or loved ones. How could you explain coming home 5 times at different times off the night and every time, covered in blood
It's a legitimate case made. Though It's hard to look past Lechmere and Tumblety. I could also see that these 5 murders may well have been committed by more than one killer, but being assigned to one perpetrator, of which the individual known as Jack the Ripper was just one of them and responsible for 3 of the 5
There certainly is : the 1876 inquest into the accidental death of a young boy, where he was called as a witness and named himself Charles Cross, just like he did in 1888. That's every inquest we know he ever attended as a witness, he used the same name. It's not 100% proof because we don't have Pickfords registers or his contract of employment, but there most certainly is strong evidence he was known as Cross at Pickfords.
Just like the guy Roger is presenting, it’s highly unlikely Druitt was the killer. This is basic knowledge of criminal psychology. Serial killers are always psychopaths. Psychopaths don’t commit suicide.
he is Not saying Buchan's death came out of remorse - he is saying that the realisation that it was Kelly and Not Him who was the star of the show making his so called masterpiece utterly pointless leaving hìm Nowhere ànd just another face in the crowd - - interesting and has certain points about " the tipper " that Nobody can match - Cross is brought down with the contempt that "his " claim more than has always deserved - Hutchinson ? . @robertball - company . Ps it could be that Buchan Didn't murder Kelly at all and he had been outdone and or that big day whilst mingling with the Funeral crowd Buchan had a problem with somebody - kids Anybody and the full realisation that the dread ripper was basically a wimp was more than he could handle - Obviously something pushed Mr Buchan to violence That Day - very unfortunate if Not responsible for any of the glut of deaths - but extremely and knowingly ironic if he Was .
Roger says at the start of the interview that people paint a picture of Jack the ripper as this guy with a big hat and bag and fog, and he wants to get away from that. Yet on the cover of his book its a guy with a big hat bag and fog lol, i digress 😂
I am so tired of seeing that image! Perhaps if they had a painting of the dark Victorian London skyline, with the looming shadow of a man dressed in a cap, tattered tweed jacket, holding a knife and silhouetted against a bright full moon with a skull face above the figure, it would be something different!!
I like the idea of the hat and the fog. A bit of mystery and allure.
The only reason why they thought that was cause the victims would say he would Wear a top hat, and a black over coat
The only reason why they thought that was cause the victims would say he would Wear a top hat, and a black over coat. But I believe it was rainy
I think that's just to catch the attention
I like hearing new theories. You never know because Jack the Ripper was never caught! I see so many negative comments, but i want to remind people to be open minded. I think thats what makes this case so interesting. So many suspects and so many theories! Great Video Richard! ❤
Please don’t ever stop posting videos Richard 😊
Nice to have new name on the list. That was a very interesting discussion you had with Roger.
It certainly made for intriguing listening.
Thank you Richard, your channel is one of the best i have been to.
Cheers.✅
I love the positive approach, everyone brings something new, without having the pretence is the only truth and even if people don't agree that keeps the conversation going.
Great show Richard, these interviews are my favourite types. Another suspect to consider! Can't wait to read the book and decide to myself if it could be him
While I don't buy into any of this Buchan suspect theory, I'm happy to see Richard giving a platform to all different viewpoints. I'm not sure why everyone gets so upset about these things. I'm just interested in hearing yet another spin on yet another person who was around during the "Autumn of Terror."
Could you tell us why you don't buy into any of the Buchan suspect theory? I'd honestly like to hear it
@ananimity7332 probably because it's not Lechmere / Cross who was mentioned if only in a laughable way - I would suggest .
I always enjoy learning of new theories and suspects, Thank you Richard!
Would also like to add just as I’m getting further through this video..this guy seems to know his stuff but he also comes across very obnoxious. To say Jack the Ripper couldn’t have had 9 children because he committed those killing due to being unable to have sex etc..how about Fred west? That man had multiple children and was absolutely obsessed with sex from a young age, yet he went on to kill women (his victims reach into the double figures). He also dismembered and mutilated his victims. 🤷🏻♀️
Gary Ridgeway?? Same.
Many serial killers have children. BTK, gilgo beach, etc
I thought the same thing when he said it.
Always interesting to hear a new suspect. Appreciate your research and your openness. I still think Lechmere is still at the top of the list, but your suspect is definitely interesting.
Best channel on TH-cam! 🎩
Sorry I don't agree with Robert Barber that Jack The Ripper could'nt have been in a relationship or have children. Here in Sweden between 1998 - 2005 in Umeå we had a rapist Niklas Lindgren, who left his wife in the hospital while she was giving birth and went to the nearby University and raped a women. He was convicted for raping 5 women and 1 child. The last victim ,he was trying to kill under a bridge. She ran out on the ice of the river trying to escape. He bite off a part of her ear and trying to strangle her. Niklas Lindgren has 2 or 3 children.But I wanna read Robert B book anyhow Thanks Richard for a good interview.❤
It kinda depends on the type of the killer. Some of them we can assume are perfectly capable of having wife, kids and normal family life. Ripper is assumed to be disorganized offender which means: he is more lucky than intelligent, he is impulsive, possibly insane, a loner, not very sociable. Still it does not have to mean he is not married. Especially when we are considering different culture back then. There was a killer in Poland very similar to Ed Gein and Ripper. He was married I think but he also fitted the profile of disorganized killer.
@mariuszstanisawczyk8990 I can see why most consider Jack random or disorganized. But when he killed Annie Chapman, he took all the items out of her pockets and arranged them neatly at her feet. I believe he thought of himself as an artist. Leaving the women on display, his postmortem mutilations were increasingly progressive when he had time. He deprived them of their dignity, their feminine power, he mutilated their faces, and destroyed their beauty in death. If you look at Gary Ridgeway, he saw prostitutes as vermin, and in his mind, he was doing society a favor by eliminating them. Jack took exceptional risks, but to him they might have been rationalized by careful planning. Ridgeway frequented prostitutes and they didn't suspect him because he was a repeat customer. If you're a regular John, avoiding the police is second nature. No one would suspect a repeat customer that had never shown a violent side. Ridgeway had a wife and kids, Jack could have easily had a family n appeared perfectly normal.
McNaughton naming 3 " suspects " each ridiculous Kosminski was Only mentioned originally by another High Ranking officer to take the micky who new telling the prude McNaughton that a man who supposedly tossed off in public would also capable of murder and it worked Kosminskis been a very big name since McNaughton was told this .
Nice theory to add to the list. Great interview, Richard. You’re always well balanced and open minded
It is speculation
A marine store dealer was a dealer in junk. A rag and bone man. It had nothing to do with the sea despite the name. It was quite often a Romany profession. This was interesting but I remain unconvinced.
Please read Sketches by Boz by Charles Dickens or preferably my book. The Buchan family were also not gypsies.
Why are you unconvinced? I'm curious
Thank you Richard, will watch tonight 👍
A new suspect for me to consider. Thank you for this video, Mr. Jones.
The comment about him not mutilating Stride because he turned her over and recognised her just doesn't ring true.The killer would have seen her face in Berner Street not in the near pitch blackness of Outfields Yard
It makes no sense at all. Whoever killed Elizabeth Stride must have spoken to her in order to get her to go into the yard with him. Do you really think she wouldn't have been slightly suspicious of someone speaking to her from behind? That is just absurd. The MO of Jack the Ripper is fairly consistent and it is pretty clear he faced the victim, and also strangled them before using a knife, hence the lack of blood.
Agreed. Both you guys make good points.
@@robertball2272Also It said he was disturbed by Loui with his cart and horse (who reeled as they approached the location of the body). It was also stated by the body temp of the victim (I believe?) she was killed fairly recently and the fact the horse reeled gives the idea they probably just interrupted the Ripper from completing his “work” and the horse reeled from Jack jumping back rather than the horse being frightened by her body. Would a horse be afraid of a dead body? Maybe or potentially 🤷♂️. I would think the horse would probably jump back from a quick sudden movement rather than a corpse however
@@dillionoshea7535 Yes, this is why you put blinkers on horse's head harnesses. They get really jumpy with unexpected things in their peripheral vision area.
@dillionoshea7535 that horse Was in fact a Pony.
Thanks for the video on new suspect, Mr. Jones!
Roger Barber is suggesting that Lechmere couldn't have been the killer because he had kids! Quite a few serial killers had kids! Ted Bundy and Dennis Rader spring to mind on that subject!
Yeah that statement held no weight whatsoever
I’ve literally just commented the same thing 😭😭 look at Fred west. He had lots of kids and was absolutely obsessed with sex and was a very sexually active man. Yet he murdered multiple women and mutilated them. Even cutting his own baby from a woman’s womb 😔 this man seems extremely obnoxious and doesn’t really seem to look at actual facts, just the snippets that fit (or actually dont) his theory 🤦🏻♀️ such a shame because Richard Jones is such an intelligent and interesting man I couldn’t believe he gave this man airtime on his channel to talk utter crap and basically put down anyone else that has a theory that isn’t the same as his.
Joseph deAngelo had kids, John Wayne Gacy had kids
Dennis Neilson, Peter Sutcliffe never had kids nor did Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. Not sure therefore that argument could sustained.
Add Rex Heuermann, one daughter, one stepson.
I never believed Hutchinson's story. Standing out in the dark in the pouring rain for 45 mins, in the chilly autumn air...no. Not believable to me.
Agreed. And the testimony he gave seemed overly embellished.
Whats interesting then: why would he lie? We know he was observing Miller's Court entrance. One witness confirmed it.
I’m just speculating, at this time, there was a reward offered for information leading to the capture of the killer.
Yet Abberline who questioned him at length did, or at least was able to rule him out as the Ripper. So did Abberline think what he heard from Hutchinson was credible ? Maybe not as Hutchinson doesn't figure at all in surviving police records.
@@davesmith7432it was unusually for a Ripper "witness" and perhaps the investigation on the ground led by Abberline was aware of this.
The whole argument is nonsense. He says that the Ripper was a psychopath/sociopath, but people like that don't commit suicide out of remorse. They don't have feelings like that.
The historical record since 1888 contains many serial killers that have been caught and identified, and they are usually men in relationships with women, very often married men with children. He's taking a well debunked armchair psychology view, pretty much the one police in 1888 took (which led to them not apprehending anyone), and trying to use it to argue for yet another completely unlikely "suspect" with no actual link to any of the crimes.
Jack the Ripper wasn't outwardly a weirdo, or he would have been easy to catch. He was an ordinary-seeming guy who concealed his murderous nature with 100% success.
Totally agree
@@robertball2272 Yes, I agree with you.
Agreed, good points!
I would hazard a guess and suggest not many S Ks leave calling cards behind . Buchan Didn't top himself outta remorse if you bothered to listen Properly - I wrote a reply to you and your agree folk but that missed you but 4 what it's worth it's in with the other comments
Thank you I found a few problems with his talk but love to hear the latest guess. The suicide threw me off right away.
Very interesting theory. Hopefully, one day, we will find something definitive. 😊😊😊
Great discussion! Much tasty food for thought! :)
Not discrediting Lechmere or anyone else for that matter but more people need to bettee understand what evidence and burden of proof means in legal terms. No suspect ever has to prove their innocence. This is not a witch trial. We need to prove that someone is guilty and we need evidence. Evidence. Not opinions and "common sense".
Well no, we don't. None of these people will ever be brought to trial, so such considerations are entirely irrelevant.
Yeah that is great, we do not have anything close to solid evidence against suspect, let alone that more than half the evidence has been destroyed. People can only make cases against, as best they can at this stage. We will never know who JTR was, best we can do is assertain, if you looking for guilt by todays standards, you may as well forget about JTR unless it is out of interest. People who enjoy JTR simply enjoy piecing a mystery together. I am pretty sure most people know todays standards of guilt in legal terms, but we will never find it.
I agree. These days we need more than 1 form of evidence to prove guilt. But it’s highly unlikely we’ll get it.
So the best we got is likelihood based the facts and what we know of criminal psychology.
Saying that Lechmere or Levy or Kosminski is guilty without evidence is very relevant. We still need to prove guilt otherwise we just believe our fantasies completely detached from reality @@patavinity1262
You cannot read Cutting Point without concluding that the evidence against Lechmere is decisive proof that he was both Jack and the Thames Torso fiend.
I’m 15 mins in and the most common phrase I’ve heard is “he could have…..” This is the problem with almost all books on the Ripper. Someone finds a suspect and then shoehorns what they could have done into what happened. This is the reverse of any good policy investigation. And why we have 200+ suspects.
A true crime hunter finds a possible lead, then trys to prove their innocence.
Only if its impossible to prove them innocent do you have a possible suspect
We're long past solving the crime to protect the public. Now it's just a fascination. Bask in that.
YES - give that man a coconut. Exactly what I was thinking. Roger starts by saying he wants to avoid the usual preconceptions - then immediately gets mired in the cul-de-sac of attributing gender: _"He_ ..."
Or _she._
The suspect is very interesting, however strong homicidal behaviour does not manifest suddenly, there has to be a pattern that goes into the past. That he killed himself on his birthday doesn’t mean much to me. I want to know what his past was and what was odd about the behaviour he exhibited the last few months before his suicide.
Otherwise, we would be able to suspect any person that died after Mary Jane Kelly’s murder as a probable suspect, just as strong as this one …
Some very interesting and valid points.,
Good listen
Valid hmm most could be applied to almost anyone
Interesting video thanks....
very plausible suspect imo. I was also quite surprised when I got the notification as Ed Buchan was the name of the ripperologist character in Whitechapel (tv series).
Great video! What a fresh insight. Thanks for the new information
Quite a coincidence thar Stephen Pemberton's character in Whitechapel is called Edward Buchan.
What was the particular video looking at the hand writing that was mentioned?
Jack will never be identified! He will stay in the shadows for all time.
Unless some very unexpected evidence emerges.
even that is unknown
Royal connection
@@jamessones4044 Dont be so ignorant
It was Charles lechmere
Sorry to go off topic here but I couldn’t help but notice that in the itv series “Whitechapel” that aired in around 2008 I think, one of the main characters is called Edward buchan. He is a ripperologist. He’s also suspected of being the ripper in series 1. Just found it a bit odd and wondered whether whoever wrote or researched for that series had made a connection of some sort 🤷🏻♀️ just seems coincidental
Not to denigrate the Charles Cross/Lechmere proponents but I've always wondered why his giving an alternative name is suspicious when he actually gave his correct address. Wouldn't exactly obscure his identity very much at all.
It's to do with secrecy in the papers. The tabloids would name witnesses and suspects, but they wouldn't be able to say where they actually lived. It's not so much about his own secrecy but more to do with his name being posted everywhere in the papers because of how accusatory they are. The tabloids don't care about victims, witnesses or anyone, they just want to sell papers.
Lechmere told a crafty half truth. He gave his name firstly at the inquest and knew, having thought on it, that although he was compelled to come forward to police he wanted his family not to recognise him as it is they.who could destroy his timing's.
Indeed... and especially when the alternative name he gave was one he once would have used, and by which he was likely known at work. Of course he not only freely gave the authorities his address, but also his job and his employer!
I assume that he did not think they would publish the exact address of a witness in the newspapers and I also assume his family read the papers.
@@ianbrailsford5843 he wasn't the only one using a different name. Eddows said her name was Mary Jane the night of her murder if I'm not mistaken. Aliases were used in 1888 way more than now. If you give a false now you're immediately a suspect. Back then no one really knew your real name
Poor choice for a title of a book about Jack, trying to be clever with a play on words but its bad taste.
Edit, "he had access to knives" its 1888 ffs, i'm sure everyone as they do today had access to a knife, sorry lost me 10min in.
Curious Richard, how long is the voting list so far?
It's about 33 suspects, Craig.
Do you have that link please ? Thanks 😊@@JackTheRipperTours
I certainly agree about the 'Crossmere' nomenclature red herring: stridently forwarded as a red flag in some quarters.
Thank you Mr. Jones and Mr. Barber for an interesting discussion and some very good points. I truly appreciate Mr. Barber’s humble stance. It’s refreshing to see. If I may be so bold to suggest a complement to Mr. Barber’s line of thoughts, I think you’ll find this video quite interesting. Steven Keogh was a Scotland Yard homicide detective and he’s using his unique skill set to investigate the case from the sheer facts, unbiased. He is also assisted by one of the three British profilers that work with the Yard.
th-cam.com/video/WIGVkcvxwyI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=2Vg2ozyGockLnA26
Interesting thing is that suicide at exact time of Mary Kelly funeral. But other than that I think that we're gonna find many people which are fitting the profile in Whitechapel area let alone in other (like Poplar) areas. Thats what a profile is: its just telling us what kind of person Ripper would be. But we can find many people which would be, superficially or even deeply, like Ripper - with one difference: none of them would be the killer. So the profile is just a tool which can be used in combination with solid evidence. Even the profile itself is a speculation based on the similar subjects. It doesn't have to mean that the Ripper was very much different.
One must be very careful of making assumptions and then considering them as facts. Lechmere having 9 children doesn't thus count him out. It's a double identity, as recorded with other serial killers, where their families were clueless.
Can we also not lose sight that these were poor, poor victims..as that high resolution of Mary Kelly sickenly reminds us.. and not some game of Cluedo. 'Colonel Mustard in the kitchen with the candelabra haw haw'..
Will this be available as an e-book?
To laugh at the thought of Charles lechmere after putting such a weak case forward with no evidence is laughable
Yes. Embarrassing
Possibly, but then the evidence against Charles Lechmere is also weak. The evidence against all of the popular suspects is weak.
Agreed. He’s another guy writing a book. Not solving a mystery.
It's a weak case, just like Lechmere's.
Fascinating, with astonishing details for a plausible, at last, candidate, bit irritating bumptious host, but thank you
Fascinating, but I think Roger's mistaken about Hutchinson's identity. Is there any evidence that the Durham Hutchinson was based in London in 1888, when in both 1881 and 1891 censuses he was based far away in Northeast England? Did his signature match those on the police witness statement of "the" George Hutchinson? I know someone whose signature _did_ match, and he wasn't from the Northeast that's for sure :)
Interesting. Thanks for sharing. I made a note of this book to check out.
I enjoy hearing ideas about JTR that people have put some thought into. I'm so tired of hearing that Charles Lechmere was the killer simply because he was the first one to discover one of the victims.
If you've heard that that's the only reason people suspect him you then haven't heard enough. There's plenty more than that.
Your comment demonstrates your lack of knowledge on Lechmere. I recommend checking out Richard’s video on it with guest Ed Stow. Also, he did a contrary video with Steve Blomer. Both well worth watching!
There is a lot more to Lechmere being the killer than him "discovering" the body: the "bleeding argument", Dr Llewellyn's statements, the fact that Robert Paul never saw, and more importantly never heard his footsteps when walking on the empty Bucks Row or anywhere we else, P.C. Meisens statements on what Lechmere had said to him, the fact that he didn't "turn up" until after the newspaper interview with R. Paul.
They do have lots of other reasons for suspecting Lechmere, but those other reasons are based on misreading the evidence.
Interesting Richard,least a different name in the frame,as to how viable Buchan is as a suspect ? don’t know lol,some of Roger’s thinking makes sense,I also doubt the police at the time or following years had much idea who he was and I’m sure that seriously irked them!
If you close your eyes it’s piers Morgan talking!
Agreed, 😂
Question:The juwes are the MEN plural ?
Whether or not he called himself Lechmere or Cross and regardless of how many children he fathered, he was still alone with Polly Nichols for at least 8 minutes before Robert Paul arrived, and he still lied when he told a policeman that he had been sent by another policeman to relay a message regarding the discovery of Polly Nichols. Yes, the evidence regarding Cross/Lechmere is entirely circumstantial, but he's the only one who can be tied, geographically to not just one murder, but all of them, including murders before and after the canonical five.
Always interesting to listen to as many different theories as possible, regardless of if they are credible or not. So please keep them coming Richard! For this suspect: I think it is a very incovincing story. Only assumptions and cherry picking from evidence. It is not clear to me at all why this guy should be a suspect. Because he killed himself on the day of the Kelly funeral? Because he is a parttime shoemaker and therefore has a knife (I think the majority of people in that area had a knife at the time!)? Or because he had access to sailor outfits? And a witness said to have seen such an outfit, also a witness saw a 30 year old man and his suspect was 29. Cherry picking from witnesses, while earlier he stated witnesses are unrelieable. Seems to me Roger sees Lechmere as a threat to his suspect too as he tries to laugh off the Lechmere theory a bit too easily on a few occasions. So no: I don't think this is the solution. Nevertheless interesting to listen to the theory!
So, people who think it was Lechmere are altering murder times to fit their suspect’s movements…..meanwhile “he has access to a knife!!!! No one else at the time would have had a knife!”
He also mentions that Buchan would have had access to a shoe makers knife, a bit like Lechmere, whose stepdad was a shoemaker.
The Jack the Ripper industry rolls on!
There are some people who don`t want his identity to be discovered
It’s never going to be anyway no matter what anyone wants 😂
I do believe that there probably is some definite incriminating evidence still out there, but who's going to be the one to present it and, in doing so, essentially kill off a multi-million pound industry.
I'm surprised that he rubbishes the timing of Lechmere's way to work. This is very clearly solidified by Paul and the police. Paul being the most important witness. The condition of Nichols' corpse leaving Lechmere as her killer, or, him having disturbed the Ripper within the 5 minutes before he found her. Lechmere lied about the time he left home in order to leave him with just a few minutes with the corpse.. whereas leaving home earlier, would have given him ample time to meet, talk and kill prior to Paul turning up. Either way; it's either the box-checking Lechmere or not. Just how many vicerating, homocidal, sociopaths could possibly be in the area!?
Agreed. Good points
But that is just the point. Paul is the most important witness for the Lechmerians because he 'creates' a time-gap by stating he entered Bucks Row at 3:45 precisely (and just ignoring Cross gave his time of departure "at around" 3:30). But Pauls time is contradicted by the Police. All 3 of them. Neil states he was with the body at 3:45. Thain confirms he was alerted by Neil around 3:45 and Mizen states he spoke with Cross and Paul at 3:45 several minutes after the carmen had already left the body. So unless all 3 policemen (from 2 different divisions) were making things up or conspiring for some reason Pauls time of 3:45 can't be accurate.
The state of Nichols body says nothing about the identity of her killer other than that he was a sociophatic coward and vicious killer, and I think everybody agrees there probably was only 1 in the area, only after almost 140 years we still don't know who he was and probably never will.
@@LucasLucas-ne4xs I disagree. Paul probably had a good idea what time it was when he left his home as he did the same thing everyday. There was a large clock on the brewers building, visible from the entrance to Bucks Row. So he was close. Not exact but close. The 3 PCs likely met up at Nichols body and got their story straight. Not all of the things you mentioned could been at the same time. But it could have happened in a short approximate time. Once Neil flashes Thain, he’s no longer worried about keeping track of time. So they pieced it together afterward.
However, Lechmere lied to Misen and later lied about his identity. So why do you think he’s telling the truth about his timeline?
Why is this trustworthy when a liar claimed it and no one can corroborate it?
On Paul’s path they should have been aware of each other at some point before entering Bucks Row. But Paul didn’t see him until he was only 40 yards from him, standing where the woman was. So someone’s timeline was false.
Polly’s dress was pulled down concealing the wounds before Paul got there. He didn’t know she was dead.
Why would this notorious display killer leave his work covered if no one was there to catch him?
Polly hadn’t started bleeding. Why? Because she just died!
@@davesmith7432 I agree if Cross was the killer (big IF) he lied about the time he left home. He would need a lot longer to find Polly on Whitechapel Road, chat her up, follow her to Bucks Row and kill her.
So why jump through hoops and try to create a time-gap based on his own timing and use the problematic statement of Robert Paul that contradicts everyone elses?
Intresting you say Pauls time is correct because there was a brewers clock, but Paul never mentioned the clock (other witnesses did in similar situations), we have no idea if the clock was working and it's time was correct, and why does this clock not apply to Thain who entered Bucks Row the exact same way ? Yet Thain clearly stated he was signaled over by Neil around 3:45 who by then was already with the body.
Your accusation that the 3 PCs met up at Pollys body and got their story straight is no small feat : not only do you accuse them of sabotaging a murder investigation from the start but also committing perjury during the inquest. Btw Why did they do that ?
It's nonsens ofc : Thain was already sent to dr. LLewellyn when Mizen arrived and he himself was immediately ordered to go fetch an ambulance, but it is very obvious anyway Mizen never confered with his collegues from an other division : Neil never knew about the carmen Mizen spoke to at 3:45. He made a fool of himself (and the whole Police force) by claiming he was the one who found the body during the first inquest the next day.
How could Neil not know about the carmen if as you claim they got their story straight over Nichols fresh body ?
The answer is simple : they never did : 3.45 is the time 2 PCs were with the body and the time Mizen was talking to the carmen. Paul is wrong. Most likely he is not deliberately lying, he just got the wrong time and in fact wasn't running as late as he thought he was.
It's always amusing to see how Lechmerians cherry pick the elements that supports their theory but ignore the facts that contradict them (or even worse : invent the most outlandish stories to undermine them)
What Cross said is true when it fits the narrative : when he left home, that he didn't want to touch the body, that he saw or heard nobody in Buck Row. But of course he is a liar when he contradicts the gospel.
The Mizen scam never happened, he didn't lie about his identity, the carmen (both moving) where just far enough apart to not see or hear eachother (pretty obvious when you look at the map) and the whole Pully was covered up by Cross and wasn't even bleeding is fantasy. Of course that's only my opinion.
@@LucasLucas-ne4xs If you (reasonably) assume that the times given by all parties is, in reality 3:45am +/- 4 minutes, then there is no problem. They are all correct in that case. All these things happened 'around' 3:45am.
Brilliant film as always. Serial killers look like the bloke next door which is true as my neighbour was Ted Bundy.
Interesting talk!
He consulted a graphologist for a personality profile? 😂
That did not start out right....but still an interesting topic.
You should have compared his signature to the from Hell letter
Yeah but the guy committed suicide he would have written the note saying that he was the murderer if he wanted to have recognition so that doesn't really hold water. One thing people don't seem to mention the guy would always be covered in blood he can't do that sort of thing and not be covered in blood even with an apron, you would have to have changes of clothes and clothes weren't cheap back then. And the place was swarming with police so the person would have to no a very good way of Escape or live nearby. I believe he knew the police and that's why he wasn't a suspect it's a great cover. There was one professional guy I can't remember who it was now who was constantly at every scene before the police. I think that's a bit of a misnomer about the lighting I think it was just as bright or even brighter than street lights today it was a very bright white light I think accessorine gas. of course some places are going to be dark like round those areas, I don't know if we have any Street plans of lighting. Could you hear Big Ben from there to set your watch? They would rely on post offices and the local clock that should be set daily, I don't think the time would be that far out yes an individual might have a bad watch but they would reference with their colleagues.
So the author says there aren't many facts in the case (there are many more than he seems to think),but then goes on to SPECULATE that his suspect saw Liz Stride in her coffee shop(?) and recognised her during her murder causing him to flee! Utter rubbish!
Roger laughs off the arguments for Lechmere being the killer but is there any other mentioned suspect that with 100% certainty can be linked to any murder scene? The case against against Lechmere is strong: the "bleeding argument", Dr Llwellyns statements, the circumstances that Robert Paul never saw, and more importantly never heard him walking in front of of him in Bucks Row or anywhere else, the statements by P.C. Meisens, the fact he didn't "turn up" until Robert Paul's statements in the paper.
So Roger is coming from a psychological point of view. He says sociopaths “can’t have relationships with women”. I disagree. Sociopaths have a difficult time having relationships with anyone.
Now Ed Buchan killed himself. That’s a problem with this killer’s psychology profile. He was undoubtedly a psychopath. And psychopaths very rarely kill themselves.
He mentioned Charles Lechmere went by Cross at Pickfords. I’d like to see the evidence for that. And he used his long dead stepfathers name to get a job at Pickfords because his step father was a PC.
So being a son of a PC gets you a job as a carman? Ok.
There was evidence of Lechmere hiding his name Roger.
At the day he was at the inquest, there were 10-12 newspapers represented. And some of them got his name completely wrong. “George Cross”. And only 1 paper actually got his address.
So it’s logical to suggest he was hiding his name. Even when he didn’t have to.
Lechmere fathered 12 kids. 2 of them were named Charles Allen Lechmere. So that name was very important to him.
To suggest because he was a family man he couldn’t have been the killer is short sighted. There are many examples of serial killers that lead double lives. The most successful ones are the best at it. Pretending to be something they are not. Blending in. Lying to and manipulating people throughout their lives to get what they want.
Sorry about your timing. I agree it could have been off a bit. But PC Neil testified he was in Bucks Row around 3:15 and Polly wasn’t there.
There was a clock on brewery visible from the entrance to Bucks Row. Paul may have seen it. He probably had a good idea what time it was.
He walked down that path to find Lechmere already there standing where the woman was.
Here dress already covering the abdominal wounds! Why?
Why did this infamous display killer hide his work. When no one was there to catch him?
There was no blood to be found. They saw the jolly bonnet on the ground so it wasn’t that dark. Lechmere goes on to lie to PC Misen about what he left back in Bucks Row.
The PCs timeline was a little off of Paul’s. But close. Dr Llewellyn’s estimate TOD was close too. About a half hour. That would put it around 3:30-3:45.
Bottom line…Lechmere should be at least Person of Interest #1 in the murder of Polly.
So how can his timeline be trustworthy when we now know he was a liar? Especially since no one can verify it.
How long was he alone with the just murdered body of Polly?
I think he's made a brilliant case, here. It wouldn't remotely surprise me if Buchan was indded the culprit.
Interresting. Will look into it. Just one thing, with Charles Lechmere, no one is changing times to fit anything! Even today, the time of death is not accurate at all, it is at best a gestiimation, like or not Lechmere has alot going for him. He does have some things going against him as well make no mistake but he is a solid viable suspect, even beyond the canonical 5 it even thickens.
I agree with most of what you’re saying, asides from medical expertise. Why would they call a doctor to examine a woman lying on the ground dead if the doctor had no idea what he was talking about? Why would he be summoned out of bed at 4am if he didn’t know what he was talking about?
Sure it wasn’t down to the minute, but there were useful clues that could’ve narrowed down the time.
Such as the bodies core temp or if the onset of rigor mortis has occurred. And then there’s the blood evidence. A woman with nearly decapitated and only a small puddle of blood oozing out when Neil arrived.
Unlike Turner, whose body was cold with the landing covered in blood, it shows she died recently.
Not to mention it correlates with PC Neil’s testimony that he passed the murder site at 3:15. He must have been close.
@@davesmith7432 The reason why a doctor is summoned is because only a medical expert can pronounce life extinct at a scene of death. Even if it is very obvious the victim is dead, the police still needs confirmation from a doctor before they can move the body.
The method of establishing TOD based on just feeling the victims hands or other body parts is notoriously flawed. In the case of Nichols it is obvious Dr. Lewellyn never took her temperature at the scene other than feeling her hands and arms. He didn't even notice her extensive abdominal wounds.
As you correctly say, the fact that Neil passed the murder site at 3:15 means we know she could not have been dead for more than 30 mins when she was found. If you look at the other murders, you will see the estimated TOD given by the doctors is strong when it is backed up by confirmed statements -especially from the police or reliable witnesses- about when the victim was found and when the murder could not have happened yet. (Nichols, Stride, Eddowes). When there are no such reports, or they are not known to the doctor when he makes his estimation, they quickly become problematic (Tabram, Chapman and especially Kelly)
We don't have any decent blood evidence in Nichols case : Neils statement is rather vague, Nichols wore several layers of clothing that very likely soaked up a lot of the blood and she had severe abdominal wounds she must have been bleeding from but that weren't noticed until much later at the morgue, and it is very likely both her throat cuts and abdominal mutilations were done when she was lying down and her heart already/almost stopped beating due to strangulation.
What if there was no reason he took the bodies apart? Maybe he was just sick, maybe he was living out psycho fantasies and nothing more. Other murderers have done this. Sometimes people are just messed up. They dont need a reason, though he probably did have one
Alas this person's pompous delivery detracted from his argument.
Some fascinating points here, but I would just point out the disservice done by bringing graphology into the talk. If you have to use pseudoscience to prove a point, it doesn’t really bolster your case.
That was more of an aside. Saying that the Dear Boss letter wasn't really written by the killer wasn't intended to be considered a reason why Buchan should be considered as a suspect.
So you say that Lechmere could not possibly have been a serial killer of prostitutes because he had many children and was thus not impotent. I guess this means Robert Yates (father of five) could not possibly have been the killer 18 women, most of whom were prostitutes ... right ... right?
I thought the soubriquet of JTR was birthed by journalist Tom Bullen/ing.
Did cross not tell the police officer that he and Paul met when they continued on to work that another police officer was at the scene and was looking for assistance?
And this was a lie but by coincidence when he got to the scene another cop was there.
According to Cross and Paul, he didn't say that. That stands to reason, because if Paul had heard Cross say that, he would have known it wasn't true, so Cross would have known better than to say that. he would have gained no advantage by saying that anyway.
Not a thing here would stand up in court of law.
That's true of all the suspects. The point isn't to say that Buchan was the Ripper, but to say that there's enough reason for him to be part of the suspect discussion.
Interesting. Thank you Richard!
Roger. We don't know what time lechmere left home and also Nichols wasn't killed at 3.15 looking at the evidence of blood flow.
Somebody should probably tell Roger that PC Neil testified he was at Bucks Row around 3:15.
Lots of Anti Letchmere vibes here.... Yes he could have had children, no one knows he was impotent. The arguments about the time of death of one of the victims , Annie Chapman, are not essential at all to the theory, not important really. And no, he wasn't Charles Cross. His name was Letechmere on all official ( over 100) documents.
If the more important things said here by Roger Barber check out then this bloke Edward Buchan Must be considered a serious candidate for the title of the Whitechapel murderer - the taking of certain body parts Always had to have a answer and maybe Roger has given people that most crucial and much underlooked question a answer - well done Roger .ps I thought it of interest that Richard asks you Roger if Buchan was Leather Apron whilst he is in the full knowledge that L A was John Pizer a very odd remark to say the least - I wonder Why ?.
Absolutely not.
Jack the ripper could not have possibly lived among family, friends or loved ones.
How could you explain coming home 5 times at different times off the night and every time, covered in blood
Was he covered in blood?
@@BrendonChase2012Charles lechmere killed on his way to work
It's a legitimate case made.
Though It's hard to look past Lechmere and Tumblety.
I could also see that these 5 murders may well have been
committed by more than one killer, but being assigned to one perpetrator, of which the individual known as Jack the Ripper was just one of them and responsible for 3 of the 5
Lechmere was killing before and after the canonical 5
Roger is NOT being objective
Utter drivel
Agreed. Lol
This chap has such weak arguments. He is viewing from today’s standards and his standards as if people operate the same as him and his mind.
No evidence to say he used Cross at Pickfords
There certainly is : the 1876 inquest into the accidental death of a young boy, where he was called as a witness and named himself Charles Cross, just like he did in 1888. That's every inquest we know he ever attended as a witness, he used the same name.
It's not 100% proof because we don't have Pickfords registers or his contract of employment, but there most certainly is strong evidence he was known as Cross at Pickfords.
Yes there is. Charles Cross, a carman ar Pickfords ran over a young boy. Richard has posted a video on TH-cam on the incident.
Wrong!
A royal / vip link is highly likely.
Based on what? Zero.
It’s the opposite. Highly unlikely.
Doubt it. Prince Albert Victor has an alibi, and William Gull was a 71-year-old who had had a stroke.
Still Lechmere, no doubt at all.
Body parts industry possibly.
i still think Hutchinson did it . and now in going to research 51 or was 51 written fifty one ?
I look forward to reading about or watching the video on the evidence you find.
Charles lechmere was JTR ,today he would if been the main suspect
Really shallow theory...Druitt is by far more intriguing and has more evidence against him
Where is the evidence against Druitt?
Just like the guy Roger is presenting, it’s highly unlikely Druitt was the killer.
This is basic knowledge of criminal psychology. Serial killers are always psychopaths. Psychopaths don’t commit suicide.
What evidence?
@@davesmith7432Israel Keyes and Fred West both committed suicide.
Lechmere has nothing againsy him? Wtf? Seriously??? Cant be a killer because he had kids?? Deary me. How dismissive.
No one will ever convince me..........that the police higher ups, didn't know the killers identity.
🙄🙄🙄
he is Not saying Buchan's death came out of remorse - he is saying that the realisation that it was Kelly and Not Him who was the star of the show making his so called masterpiece utterly pointless leaving hìm Nowhere ànd just another face in the crowd - - interesting and has certain points about " the tipper " that Nobody can match - Cross is brought down with the contempt that "his " claim more than has always deserved - Hutchinson ? .
@robertball - company . Ps it could be that Buchan Didn't murder Kelly at all and he had been outdone and or that big day whilst mingling with the Funeral crowd Buchan had a problem with somebody - kids Anybody and the full realisation that the dread ripper was basically a wimp was more than he could handle - Obviously something pushed Mr Buchan to violence That Day - very unfortunate if Not responsible for any of the glut of deaths - but extremely and knowingly ironic if he Was .