So Cross the Ripper got involved in the investigation. Why did he stop?

[David Orsam]

Very good, thank you. Because I have two specific questions.

1. What newspaper articles do you use for the hypothesis that Lechmere had time to kill Nichols?

2. What newspaper articles do you use for the hypothesis of the Mizen scam?

I can't answer for Fisherman but, Pierre, I suspect that one of his key sources is the set of reports found in the official Home Office file held at the National Archives with reference HO 144/221/A49301C ff.6-11.

[Billiou]

When Davis ran out into the street after having found Chapman, she had been dead for the very least one hour. The more probable thing is that she had been dead for three hours.

When Lechmere "found" Nichols, she would go on to bleed for many minutes afterwards. He "found" her at a remove in time that is seemingly consistent with her death.

Thatīs how Lechmere differs.

Well, the question was directed at Columbo who had the assertion, but thanks for the reply anyway.

I agree that if he was just the one to find the body, that the killer must have made away after hearing Cross approaching, or within minutes of Cross appearing.
Comes down to the rather touchy subject of "minutes" again.....

[Columbo]

Well, the question was directed at Columbo who had the assertion, but thanks for the reply anyway.

I agree that if he was just the one to find the body, that the killer must have made away after hearing Cross approaching, or within minutes of Cross appearing.
Comes down to the rather touchy subject of "minutes" again.....

Fisherman pretty much hit that nail on the head. the only difference between Lechmere and other supposed suspects is that he has a physical tie to a victim within minutes of her dying (that is of course up for debate).

I think some are putting too much emphasis on what time Lechmere left. As far as I know we only have his word for it. He very easily could've left at 3:20a like some have suggested. There is no corroboration that 3:30 is the time he left.

Again that would be a different thread.

Columbo

[drstrange169]

>>The question "So are you suggesting that Emily Lechmere would give away her own brother?" is answered "No, she could not, because she was dead 1888" - by those who are aquainted with the case details.<<

Thank you. Precisely the point.

The normal, honest and decent thing to do would have as, you wrote,
“answered "No, she could not, because she was dead 1888".

But you didn’t chose to do that. Instead yours posts are more twisted than Richard III's spine.

In the end it’s trivial.

It's only importance was that it was the straw that finally broke the camel’s back. The real issues are the ones I listed in my last post, which I note you carefully avoided.

But some good has come out of it. I’ve found out about Emily Lechmere and I can let the thread in on the information you apparently don’t want us to know.

Emily Charlotte Lechmere died July 1869 of tuberculosis at 11 Mary Ann Street St Georges in the East.

Yes, the very same house Thomas Cross died in 5 months later. The very same house Elizabeth Lechmere lived in with Maria “Cross” his widow.


>>You do speak a lot about how you are superior to me when it comes to handling the facts, so one would think that you had more to show for it. And now that you are caught with your pants down...<<

That’s a fair call, I’ll cop that one.


>>Now, go sulk somewhere else.<<

(Sulk: withdrawn, silent resentment.)
Bet you are wishing I did.


>>Iīm done with this discussion.<<

When the going gets tough, Christer gets going! But never end an argument on a bad note.

I can fight till the cows come home, whilst you apparently are off to "sulk".

Alternatively, we could be a bit more professional about things, the choice is yours.

[Columbo]

Hi Harry,

Yes. And the theory about Charles Lechmere could just as well have been a theory about Robert Paul.

Regards, Pierre

Well, yes if Paul had found the body first.

Columbo

[Columbo]

>>The question "So are you suggesting that Emily Lechmere would give away her own brother?" is answered "No, she could not, because she was dead 1888" - by those who are aquainted with the case details.<<

Thank you. Precisely the point.

The normal, honest and decent thing to do would have as, you wrote,
“answered "No, she could not, because she was dead 1888".

But you didn’t chose to do that. Instead yours posts are more twisted than Richard III's spine.

In the end it’s trivial.

It's only importance was that it was the straw that finally broke the camel’s back. The real issues are the ones I listed in my last post, which I note you carefully avoided.

But some good has come out of it. I’ve found out about Emily Lechmere and I can let the thread in on the information you apparently don’t want us to know.

Emily Charlotte Lechmere died July 1869 of tuberculosis at 11 Mary Ann Street St Georges in the East.

Yes, the very same house Thomas Cross died in 5 months later. The very same house Elizabeth Lechmere lived in with Maria “Cross” his widow.


>>You do speak a lot about how you are superior to me when it comes to handling the facts, so one would think that you had more to show for it. And now that you are caught with your pants down...<<

That’s a fair call, I’ll cop that one.


>>Now, go sulk somewhere else.<<

(Sulk: withdrawn, silent resentment.)
Bet you are wishing I did.


>>Iīm done with this discussion.<<

When the going gets tough, Christer gets going! But never end an argument on a bad note.

I can fight till the cows come home, whilst you apparently are off to "sulk".

Alternatively, we could be a bit more professional about things, the choice is yours.

Well, guess it's time to go to another thread.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Well, guess it's time to go to another thread.

Columbo

You can say that again! With Dusty itīs always the same - he is the pinnacle of knowledge and the master of facts. Always the gentleman, he takes time to correct others who are not up to scratch morally. Which is why he posts things like this, from a page back on this thread:

"Stop telling fibs, start checking sources".

This from a man who tried to push the view that Lechmere was dozens of yards from the body ( a conclusion he could reach after having cut away the part of the quote he used that didnīt support his rather exotic claim), and who failed to check the sources about Emily Lechmere, resulting in how he noc claims that he was mislead by me into thinking that she was alive in 1888. As if he had not reached that stance on his very own, presenting her as somenbody who would be able to identify "Cross" as "Lechmere".

And then he went on to say that he would not enter any slanging match...

[GUT]

You can say that again! With Dusty itīs always the same - he is the pinnacle of knowledge and the master of facts. Always the gentleman, he takes time to correct others who are not up to scratch morally. Which is why he posts things like this, from a page back on this thread:

"Stop telling fibs, start checking sources".

This from a man who tried to push the view that Lechmere was dozens of yards from the body ( a conclusion he could reach after having cut away the part of the quote he used that didnīt support his rather exotic claim), and who failed to check the sources about Emily Lechmere, resulting in how he noc claims that he was mislead by me into thinking that she was alive in 1888. As if he had not reached that stance on his very own, presenting her as somenbody who would be able to identify "Cross" as "Lechmere".

And then he went on to say that he would not enter any slanging match...

Nearly as good as the claim that he was found "over the body".

Or even found near the body.

[drstrange169]

Obviously, you're not going to lift your game, fair enough, least we tried.

[Fisherman]

Nearly as good as the claim that he was found "over the body".

Or even found near the body.

If you had made the effort to see who says he was found over the body, you would have found that itīs not me and not Edward.

But why make the effort?

It is beyond doubt that Lechmere was found near enough the body to have been the killer. That is the end of that discussion.

Anything more bothering you?

[GUT]

If you had made the effort to see who says he was found over the body, you would have found that itīs not me and not Edward.

But why make the effort?

It is beyond doubt that Lechmere was found near enough the body to have been the killer. That is the end of that discussion.

Anything more bothering you?

You mean it was the same documentary that gave us your experts.

And he wasn't found even near the body, Paul never saw him near any body till Cross said "hey come and have a look at this bird".

So the claim he was "found near the body" is just wrong.

Seen
Ms to be bothering you a bit though.

[Fisherman]

You mean it was the same documentary that gave us your experts.

And he wasn't found even near the body, Paul never saw him near any body till Cross said "hey come and have a look at this bird".

So the claim he was "found near the body" is just wrong.

Seen
Ms to be bothering you a bit though.

A-ha..! So the fact that Paul did not see the body at the same time he saw Lechmere - who was standing in the middle of the street, while Nichols was huddled up against a gate - ensures that Lechmere was not near the body at that stage...?

Thatīs a very discerning statement, Gut. You should be proud of yourself!

As for ignorant little me, I think that anywhere from an inch to a couple of yards is near the body - near enough, anyway, for Lechmere to have been the killer, stepping away somewhat from the body as Paul approached.

You see, far from demanding that he must have been very close to the body, I actually favour a view where he had sense enough to back away from the body to make himself a lot less suspicious.

And what does he say at the inquest: "I stepped back...."

Well, well!

And yes, the documentary that said that Lechmere stood over the body, was the same documentary that used Andy Griffiths, one of the most competent policemen in the country with a 96 per cent clearing rate, James Scobie, a very well respected barrister and Jason Payne-James, one of the most merited and experienced forensic specialists in the Western hemisphere.

Since you asked, it would seem you did not know that.

It is annoying, is it not, that there is nothing at all you can do to take away the pressure from the carman? Personally, I think you are going to have to live with it, along with these corrections of mine whenever you get it completely wrong. "Not near the body"...

[Patrick S]

Once again, when all of the conjecture, supposition, and invention is put aside, we are left with nothing save the fact that Charles Cross was born as Charles Lechmere and was known - legally - by that name. That's it. There is nothing else.

Fisherman and his acolytes toss out words like "evidence", where there is none. "Blood Evidence"? Adjectives that appeared in newspapers 128 years ago. "The Mizen Scam"? It defies simple logic and assigns sinister intent to one man (Lechmere) while ignoring a reasonable, albeit rather innocuous, non-homicidal motive for bending the truth on the part of another (Mizen). Oh, and we must invent a completely fabricated backstory for another man (Paul) due to the fact that he corroborates the testimony that doesn't serve the theory (Lechmere's).

AH. But let's look beyond Buck's Row. Let's look beyond the inquest. Aside from this "false" name issue (ignoring the fact that Lechmere didn't - in fact - give a FALSE name), we see nothing suspicious in his behavior in Buck's Row. Unlike Mizen, his testimony is corroborated by another witness. But still, perhaps he pulled the wool over everyone's eyes, for more than a century.

Let's look deeper. Let's look at the man. Let's look for those clues that tell us of his desire to kill, his malignancy, his dyspeptic personality, his ill-humor, his life in disarray due to his lifelong avocation as serial killer! What do we see?

Arrests? As "Fisherman" himself admits, there is no record of that.

Psychological problems? No record of that.

Did his life as Jack the Ripper and the 'Torso Killer' impact his ability to hold down a job? Apparently not. 20+ years at Pickfords.

Did his wife suspect him? How could she stay with such a monster? We don't know the answer to former question. But we know that she stayed with him. For fifty years. Until his dying day.

He must have had some sexual deformity or disfunction, something that drove his desire to kill women? He had 11 children.

Upon his retirement he was free to kill! No more work to report to! No more hours spent working when he could be stalking his prey and KILLING? He opened a shop.

He secretly hated his wife? He left her a nice sum upon his death, having worked his entire adult life, bettering his wife's and his children's lives as a result.

His wife must have been relieved he died. She likely took up with another man upon his death? She never remarried.

His kids must have been a mess with a serial killer for a father? No. Not at all. They grew into law abiding, professional people.

NONE of these things - on it's own - means anything at all. I'm sure that many are ready to respond with examples of married serial killers, murderers with kids, jobs, etc. That's not the point. The point is there is NOTHING here. Nothing at all. No motive or reason for this man to kill. No evidence he killed. No suspicious behavior, no apparent consciousness of guilt. He stayed when human nature tells everyone else to run. He showed up at the inquest, unnamed, uncompelled. He went back to his life afterward. We don't hear from him again. He goes back to his life. The normal, I'd say admirable life described above.

All of the insults, and condescending lectures in the world can't give credence to this nonsense. It's only the sheer absurdity of it all that keeps us coming back, arguing, going blue in the face. One of "Fisherman's" fanboys (who contributes nothing to these board, thus he doesn't deserve to be named, much less engaged) keeps accusing those who disagree of being "jealous", as if we are all as juvenile as he is. I think most of us continue to stamp our feet and write treatises of indignation because we don't want this foolishness to influence those who know less than we do. We don't want his to be an accepted "solution" to the identity of Jack the Ripper. We don't want to hear someone on the street say, "Oh! They solved that! It was some guy named Lechmere, right?" It was the same with Sickert. Same with the Royal Conspiracy, and all the others.

[Harry D]

Once again, when all of the conjecture, supposition, and invention is put aside, we are left with nothing save the fact that Charles Cross was born as Charles Lechmere and was known - legally - by that name. That's it. There is nothing else.

Fisherman and his acolytes toss out words like "evidence", where there is none. "Blood Evidence"? Adjectives that appeared in newspapers 128 years ago. "The Mizen Scam"? It defies simple logic and assigns sinister intent to one man (Lechmere) while ignoring a reasonable, albeit rather innocuous, non-homicidal motive for bending the truth on the part of another (Mizen). Oh, and we must invent a completely fabricated backstory for another man (Paul) due to the fact that he corroborates the testimony that doesn't serve the theory (Lechmere's).

AH. But let's look beyond Buck's Row. Let's look beyond the inquest. Aside from this "false" name issue (ignoring the fact that Lechmere didn't - in fact - give a FALSE name), we see nothing suspicious in his behavior in Buck's Row. Unlike Mizen, his testimony is corroborated by another witness. But still, perhaps he pulled the wool over everyone's eyes, for more than a century.

Let's look deeper. Let's look at the man. Let's look for those clues that tell us of his desire to kill, his malignancy, his dyspeptic personality, his ill-humor, his life in disarray due to his lifelong avocation as serial killer! What do we see?

Arrests? As "Fisherman" himself admits, there is no record of that.

Psychological problems? No record of that.

Did his life as Jack the Ripper and the 'Torso Killer' impact his ability to hold down a job? Apparently not. 20+ years at Pickfords.

Did his wife suspect him? How could she stay with such a monster? We don't know the answer to former question. But we know that she stayed with him. For fifty years. Until his dying day.

He must have had some sexual deformity or disfunction, something that drove his desire to kill women? He had 11 children.

Upon his retirement he was free to kill! No more work to report to! No more hours spent working when he could be stalking his prey and KILLING? He opened a shop.

He secretly hated his wife? He left her a nice sum upon his death, having worked his entire adult life, bettering his wife's and his children's lives as a result.

His wife must have been relieved he died. She likely took up with another man upon his death? She never remarried.

His kids must have been a mess with a serial killer for a father? No. Not at all. They grew into law abiding, professional people.

NONE of these things - on it's own - means anything at all. I'm sure that many are ready to respond with examples of married serial killers, murderers with kids, jobs, etc. That's not the point. The point is there is NOTHING here. Nothing at all. No motive or reason for this man to kill. No evidence he killed. No suspicious behavior, no apparent consciousness of guilt. He stayed when human nature tells everyone else to run. He showed up at the inquest, unnamed, uncompelled. He went back to his life afterward. We don't hear from him again. He goes back to his life. The normal, I'd say admirable life described above.

All of the insults, and condescending lectures in the world can't give credence to this nonsense. It's only the sheer absurdity of it all that keeps us coming back, arguing, going blue in the face. One of "Fisherman's" fanboys (who contributes nothing to these board, thus he doesn't deserve to be named, much less engaged) keeps accusing those who disagree of being "jealous", as if we are all as juvenile as he is. I think most of us continue to stamp our feet and write treatises of indignation because we don't want this foolishness to influence those who know less than we do. We don't want his to be an accepted "solution" to the identity of Jack the Ripper. We don't want to hear someone on the street say, "Oh! They solved that! It was some guy named Lechmere, right?" It was the same with Sickert. Same with the Royal Conspiracy, and all the others.

Well summarised, Patrick, and the perfect note on which to end this debate, but what are the chances of that?

[miss marple]

Brilliant post, Patrick. SPOT ON

Miss Marple