Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Alice Mackenzie: McKenzie - Ripper or not? - by curious 17 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Weapons used on Mary? - by Joshua Rogan 19 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Weapons used on Mary? - by Sam Flynn 57 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Weapons used on Mary? - by Sam Flynn 1 hour and 7 minutes ago.
Alice Mackenzie: Was Mackenzie a copycat? - by curious 1 hour and 12 minutes ago.
General Discussion: What Would It Take To Convince You? - by Patrick S 1 hour and 15 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Mary Jane Kelly: Weapons used on Mary? - (42 posts)
General Discussion: What Would It Take To Convince You? - (26 posts)
Witnesses: Value of a lie - (13 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (12 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (11 posts)
Alice Mackenzie: McKenzie - Ripper or not? - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-19-2017, 07:25 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,697
Default

IMHO
I don't think anything that's been discussed about Lechmere dismisses him for being the ripper. not this psychopath argument, or the blood evidence or the timing issues. Now , obviously Fish has not proved all the three above from his view. conversely, while others have pointed to the above as having holes, nothing yet rules him out, like say Ostrog.

we still have the name discrepancy, and the fact that he is the only witness/suspect that is seen near the dead victim before rising any alarm. we also know his work route brought him near the murder scenes around TOD and the mothers house connection near Berner street.
Hes also one of the few suspects that actually has any physical ties to the case.

Sure, probably just a witness, but at this point he cant be ruled out-far from it.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-19-2017, 10:41 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 7,903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
we also know his work route brought him near the murder scenes around TOD
We only know that for definite for the Nichols murder; although even here, as we've seen, the TOD could have been 20 minutes before Cross arrived in Bucks Row.

With regard to the other murders, he could have taken different routes, worked different hours, or was otherwise indisposed on one, more, or every such occasion.

As with much else, it's only conjecture that places him in the line of fire.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-19-2017, 11:54 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 967
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
IMHO
I don't think anything that's been discussed about Lechmere dismisses him for being the ripper. not this psychopath argument, or the blood evidence or the timing issues. Now , obviously Fish has not proved all the three above from his view. conversely, while others have pointed to the above as having holes, nothing yet rules him out, like say Ostrog.

we still have the name discrepancy, and the fact that he is the only witness/suspect that is seen near the dead victim before rising any alarm. we also know his work route brought him near the murder scenes around TOD and the mothers house connection near Berner street.
Hes also one of the few suspects that actually has any physical ties to the case.

Sure, probably just a witness, but at this point he cant be ruled out-far from it.
Abby,

First, let's not focus on the fact that Lechmere hasn't been "dismissed" as the Ripper. That's a near impossible metric. Unless we have documentary evidence that said suspect was locked away, dead, or far, far away, that person CAN (and probably WILL at some point) be put forward as Jack the Ripper and no one can conclusively "dismiss" him as such. One could pull the census records, finger a name, and say (to coin a phrase), "I think I have found him!" How can we prove otherwise? Lacking contradictory evidence, we CANNOT. Thus, we can only apply common sense, reason. We should ask questions like this: "Based on what information I have, do I think its PLAUSIBLE that this man was Jack the Ripper?"

Second, I'm struggling with your referring to Lechmere as "the only witness/suspect that is seen near the dead victim before rising any alarm".

Let's start with this: What response should we have expected? We know that Robert Paul stood inches from Nichols and noticed no injuries. We know that Neil saw nothing until he trained his lantern to light the scene. So, clearly it was dark and Nichols' injuries weren't apparent. Should we have expected Lechmere, upon finding a woman lying on the pavement at 3:45am to instantly begin screaming, "MURDER! MURDER!" at the top of his lungs? Should he have begun pounding on doors and windows, screaming for help? We KNOW Nichols was dead. Lechmere did not. And there were many reasons - all of which Mr. Lechmere was well aware and other than her having been a Ripper victim - that she may have been lying there.

Today, in 2017, people walk past bodies on the street (or doing laps on subway cars) without doing as much as we know that Lechmere did that night in Buck's Row. It's as true today as it was then: Most of these bodies are people very much alive. They're asleep, passed out drunk, on drugs. Some prove do prove to be dead. Very few of those prove to have been the victims of murder.

Further, I suggest that Lechmere's reaction was almost identical the reaction Diemshutz had upon finding Stride in Dutfield's Yard. He struck a match and it was blown out. But he saw enough by it's light to determine that a woman was lying there. What did he do? Did be begin screaming for help? Of course not. He went to the club and told his wife and others what he'd found. And guess what he told them specifically? That he found a woman lying in the yard but he could not tell if she was "dead or drunk". Sound familiar?

Going further still...this term, "raising the alarm". I struggle with it. I suppose that it can describe any number of reactions. Alas, the reaction really depends on the information the alarm raiser has at the time he or she raises the alarm. I'd suggest both Lechmere and Diemshutz "raised the alarm" in that they alerted others to what they'd found. Of course, Diemshutz returned to scene with a candle and saw Stride's injuries, saw she was dead. Paul and Lechmere had no candle. But, what did they do, even as they were still unsure if the woman was "drunk or dead"? They went to find a policeman. Which is exactly what Diemschutz and Kozebrodsky did. Only they WERE shouting now because they had information that Lechmere and Paul did not: They knew the woman was DEAD. They saw her injuries. Thus, the alarm they raised was appropriate based upon the information they had at THAT time. Just as the alarm Diemschutz raised moments earlier was appropriate based on the information he had when he entered the club to report what he'd seen, not certain that he'd found a dead woman. And just as Lechmere and Paul's alarm was appropriate based on the information they had as the exited Buck's Row together.

Last edited by Patrick S : 05-19-2017 at 12:02 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-20-2017, 01:18 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 566
Default

Hi

I just find it difficult to believe that Jack the Ripper would commit a murder on his way to work?
a) he wouldn't have risked turning up for work spattered in blood (no matter how small an amount) when a murder had occurred on the very route that he'd taken to work.
b) he couldn't have known how long the murder would take to commit and we know how pushed for time he was. His main thought was not being late for work.
c) surely he took the same route to work every day and so it's likely that he'd seen Robert Paul before even if they'd never spoken. So if he knew that at least one other bloke walked along the same street at around the same time every day it would have deterred him.
d) I think that we would all think it was unlikely that Richardson would have killed Annie Chapman in his mother's back yard. Or that Reeve would have killed Tabram on a landing in the building where he lived. We don't know how intelligent Jack was but we can, at least, say that he was smart enough to avoid detection; would he really risk murdering a woman in a spot that he past every day on the way to work.
e) if he was guilty surely he'd more likely have just run when he heard Paul's footsteps around 40 yards away( a good head start )
f) he gave the police the name he used in speech every day. If he'd have called himself Lechmere people would be saying why didn't he use the name that he used every day (Cross)
g) he turned up to the inquest and gave a completely plausible account of his actions.

I, personally, can't see him as the ripper. I think the name thing has added mystery where none really exists.
Regards
HS
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-21-2017, 10:22 AM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,854
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Hi

I just find it difficult to believe that Jack the Ripper would commit a murder on his way to work?
a) he wouldn't have risked turning up for work spattered in blood (no matter how small an amount) when a murder had occurred on the very route that he'd taken to work.
b) he couldn't have known how long the murder would take to commit and we know how pushed for time he was. His main thought was not being late for work.
c) surely he took the same route to work every day and so it's likely that he'd seen Robert Paul before even if they'd never spoken. So if he knew that at least one other bloke walked along the same street at around the same time every day it would have deterred him.
d) I think that we would all think it was unlikely that Richardson would have killed Annie Chapman in his mother's back yard. Or that Reeve would have killed Tabram on a landing in the building where he lived. We don't know how intelligent Jack was but we can, at least, say that he was smart enough to avoid detection; would he really risk murdering a woman in a spot that he past every day on the way to work.
e) if he was guilty surely he'd more likely have just run when he heard Paul's footsteps around 40 yards away( a good head start )
f) he gave the police the name he used in speech every day. If he'd have called himself Lechmere people would be saying why didn't he use the name that he used every day (Cross)
g) he turned up to the inquest and gave a completely plausible account of his actions.

I, personally, can't see him as the ripper. I think the name thing has added mystery where none really exists.
Regards
HS
Same here. That's always been one of my problems (among others!) when it comes to Lechmere as the Ripper.

Did a Ripper murder coincide with the route of a local carman, or did a local carman suddenly decide to kill on his route to work? I know which sounds more plausible to me.
__________________
Hail to the king, baby!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-21-2017, 03:50 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
Same here. That's always been one of my problems (among others!) when it comes to Lechmere as the Ripper.

Did a Ripper murder coincide with the route of a local carman, or did a local carman suddenly decide to kill on his route to work? I know which sounds more plausible to me.
It just seems so unlikely. Especially when you consider that he worked, raised a family and had what appears to be a normal, settled life. He's basically being suspected because he gave the name Cross. Maybe it would be a point if he'd said that it was Fred Smith and then disappeared off the radar but he didn't.
Regards
HS
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-01-2017, 04:16 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,232
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
Further, I suggest that Lechmere's reaction was almost identical the reaction Diemshutz had upon finding Stride in Dutfield's Yard. He struck a match and it was blown out. But he saw enough by it's light to determine that a woman was lying there. What did he do? Did be begin screaming for help? Of course not. He went to the club and told his wife and others what he'd found. And guess what he told them specifically? That he found a woman lying in the yard but he could not tell if she was "dead or drunk". Sound familiar?

Going further still...this term, "raising the alarm". I struggle with it. I suppose that it can describe any number of reactions. Alas, the reaction really depends on the information the alarm raiser has at the time he or she raises the alarm. I'd suggest both Lechmere and Diemshutz "raised the alarm" in that they alerted others to what they'd found. Of course, Diemshutz returned to scene with a candle and saw Stride's injuries, saw she was dead. Paul and Lechmere had no candle. But, what did they do, even as they were still unsure if the woman was "drunk or dead"? They went to find a policeman. Which is exactly what Diemschutz and Kozebrodsky did. Only they WERE shouting now because they had information that Lechmere and Paul did not: They knew the woman was DEAD. They saw her injuries. Thus, the alarm they raised was appropriate based upon the information they had at THAT time. Just as the alarm Diemschutz raised moments earlier was appropriate based on the information he had when he entered the club to report what he'd seen, not certain that he'd found a dead woman. And just as Lechmere and Paul's alarm was appropriate based on the information they had as the exited Buck's Row together.
Hi Patrick,

By coincidence I posted this earlier today on the other site:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caroline Morris View Post
I think it's very suspicious that he [Diemshutz] used different spellings of his name at different times. The man clearly had something to hide and possibly didn't want his wife to find out he had discovered a murder victim.

Do I win £5?
http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....332#post321332

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-08-2017, 08:53 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi Patrick,

By coincidence I posted this earlier today on the other site:



http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....332#post321332

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz

Did Diemschutz use different spellings of his name or did other people just mis-spell it?

Regards
Herlock
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-09-2017, 04:35 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,232
Default

No idea, HS. I had my tongue very firmly in my cheek when I did that post.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-09-2017, 04:37 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
No idea, HS. I had my tongue very firmly in my cheek when I did that post.

Love,

Caz
X
Ahhhh. Didn't pick up on that.

Regards
Herlock
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.