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:
Kosminski, Aaron: Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have? - by Damaso Marte 2 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - by drstrange169 3 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - by drstrange169 3 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: Lipski - by c.d. 7 hours ago.
A6 Murders: Here we go again.... - by moste 8 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - by John G 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - (10 posts)
A6 Murders: Here we go again.... - (9 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have? - (7 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: More Newspaper Articles - (4 posts)
Non-Fiction: Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2 - (3 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: Lipski - (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
  #1091  
Old Yesterday, 10:42 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: north london
Posts: 2,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post


In my view this is what Christer has done quite admirably with his Lechmere theory. Don't get me wrong. I don't have an issue with any of it. Quite the opposite. As I've said, I find the discussions productive and stimulating, and once we (and by we I mean "I") manage to gain some perspective, quite fun. I hope he returns to the board soon because it's immeasurably better when he's here.
I agree with you on all of that, the amount of work and research put in is astounding and yes he has defended his theory well at times.

Yes the discussions have been very productive from my point of view, It has got me looking at the Torso murders, which I would not have done otherwise. And it is lead me to research the whole of the Bucks Row murder in great detail. This research, allowed me pose the time lines and seriously question the statement of PC Mizen at the weekend.

It is a great shame that Christer has, for what ever reason, decided not attempt to address the serious points I made here.

Like you I hope he returns soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post

. I can suggest that he gave the name Cross because his stepfather was a policeman and he was known to some still on the force as Thomas Cross's son. He was almost certainly never legally Charles Cross, but he was known by that name when his mother was married to Thomas Cross.
I can suggest the name was simply easier and most people knew him by it, so he went by it.
I have given that very reason myself, several times over a number of threads, strangely while Christer often addresses some of the reasons the name Cross may have been used, he does not attempt to answer that one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post

I can suggest that he gave the name Cross because NO ONE knew him by that name and he was a nervous fellow by nature and asked the coroner and police to call him by that name to avoid publicizing his involvement for the killer to see and possibly harm him or one of his ten kids, or his wife. All can be argued against. And all are possible.
Of course perfectly plausible




Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
The real issue I have with the theory is the level of invention and assumption required to explain Lechmere's behavior. He behaves - quite apparently - as an innocent man. He approaches Paul. He inspects the body with him. He goes with him to find a PC. He tells the PC where to go to find the body. He shows at the inquest without having been asked his name, where he lived, where he worked. No description of him is given. Yet, he appears first thing Monday morning. NONE of these facts are in dispute. But, the amount of assumption, the number of hidden motivations, non-intuitive responses to events required to explain these actions as something other than the normal actions of a man who DID NOT KILL SOMEONE is a bridge to far for me.

Patrick,
while I have raised many of those concerns myself, I have even now not discounted Lechmere as a suspect.

I said back in October that Lechmere was viable for the Nichols murder, and that has not changed.
However it is fair to say that the evidence relied on and called "Blood Evidence" is in my opinion, having researched in depth, far less significant than is suggested; particularly when much of the theory is based on MIzen's statements.
The Statements which I believe I have shown cannot be judged as viable, if the theory of the "blood evidence" is sound; either Mizen is correct or the theory that blood will stop flowing after a few minutes is.
They cannot both be correct.


(Christer is happy to allow up to about 7 minutes, or rather that is the figure he quotes from Payne-James. Mizen's statements may have been based on what he saw 20 minutes after the attack and certainly no sooner than 10 minutes.).




Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1092  
Old Yesterday, 01:31 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 7,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
either Mizen is correct or the theory that blood will stop flowing after a few minutes is. They cannot both be correct.
A large volume of blood simply won't congeal to the extent that it cannot flow within a mere 7 minutes. So Mizen is correct.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1093  
Old Yesterday, 01:47 PM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 748
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Patrick,
while I have raised many of those concerns myself, I have even now not discounted Lechmere as a suspect.

I said back in October that Lechmere was viable for the Nichols murder, and that has not changed.

Steve
I don't necessarily disagree. Although, I think I may be somewhat unique in that I cannot help but use quotations when I write the word "suspect", as I find it somewhat difficult to consider someone a "suspect" in crimes committed 129 years ago. Honestly, we have seen so many "suspects" come and go over the years that I fear I've become a confirmed skeptic, with my first reaction to news that JtR's identity has been determined being, "Not again!". And my first reaction has yet to be proven wrong. Druitt. Maybrick. Sickert. The Shawl. Tell me another one.

If a solution ever comes, if someone proposes a theory, offering a "suspect" that may be in the least convincing, I believe there will be no need to try and decipher statements or actions. We won't have to invent "scams" or reasons why someone may have done or said this or that. I remain convinced that this is simple folly after nearly 130 years. Any "evidence" will be simple, not easily contradicted, and not open to a lot of interpretation.

But....I'm convinced no "suspect" will ever come that fits that bill.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1094  
Old Yesterday, 03:43 PM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
I see. So the men gathered around the dead body communicated in sign language and whispers so as not to wake up the neighbors? I think it's safe to say there was some level of noise on the street that would have awoken a "light sleeper", lying just a few feet from the dead body. It's not credible to argue otherwise.

I do want to point to James Green. However, I don't actually believe he was Jack the Ripper. Rather, as I stated earlier, he serves as a useful device in demonstrating how simple a thing it can be to associate an individual's connection to even the most tangential aspect of the murders, one particular murder (Lechmere, Richardson) a relationship with a victim (Hutchinson, Barnett), some associated procedural task (Mann), or someone of celebrity who lived in that time and place (Prince Albert Victor, Walter Sickert, Lewis Carrol, Francis Thompson).

The creators of "theories" like these can always credibly argue that we cannot get any of these "suspects off of the hook". Consequently, no matter how many dependencies, hidden motivations, acts of providence, Mizen scams, and happy accidents we must assume took place in order to make any of the above names (and many others) into Jack the Ripper, one can always argue that it cannot be PROVEN that (insert name here) WAS NOT a serial killer.

The point is simple: James Green makes a far better "suspect" than Charles Lechmere, and I think there is an almost zero percent chance that he killed Nichols or was Jack the Ripper.

The evidence tells us that Nichols' throat had not been cut when Lechmere and Paul were in Buck's Row because their testimony tells us that they observed no blood, saw no wounds. We even have reason to suspect that Nichols may have been barely alive when the "carmen" came along. Paul tells us he detected a slight movement. We know Green was - physically - mere feet from the spot where Nichols was killed. His mother's testimony tells us he WAS there. We have Paul telling us he helped to "pull down" Nichols' "disarranged" clothing. Yet we have Neil telling us that the victim's clothing was "disarranged" when he came along a few moments later. Based on this testimony it is a near certainty that someone strangled Nichols unconscious, hid close by as Paul and Lechmere inspected his victim, emerged when they left, cut Nichols throat, "disarranged" her clothing in order to perform mutilations to her abdomen, and simply disappeared, unseen. I think it's reasonable to assume that the killer was able to retreat to a place in which he felt quite safe between the time Lechmere and Paul left Buck's Row and the time Neil entered, a span of time which could not have been more than five, seven minutes. We know that Green's home was - quite literally - located UPON the spot where Nichols died.

We also know that Green was quick to clean the pavement upon the removal of Nichols' body. Why? What does this act tell us? Did he not want his mother to see evidence of his crime? After sating his desire to kill did he not wish to be reminded of what he'd done? Did he just want to be "involved" in some way? To flaunt his crime and his ability to avoid detection? We know that Green was a psychopath because he likely killed Nichols and was Jack the Ripper (an argument you've used to explain the Mizen scam and Lechmere's risky behavior in Buck's Row, Baker's Row, at the inquest). Thus, I suggest that he WAS, in fact, inserting himself in order to taunt the police. Not only had he killed the woman in front of his own home, he'd taken the time to clean up his mess in full view of the everyone.

You once wrote on this forum that we should view the crimes with eye "Lechmere being guilty". If we view the crimes with "an eye on (Green) being guilty", if we consider his home was quite literally, at the center of the murder radius, and if Nichols WAS his first victim she was killed literally on his doorstep, and that the "blood evidence" tells us that Nichols' wounds were still "oozing" and "running" when Neil came along, I suggest that we've got a strong prima facie case against James Green, AKA Jack the Ripper.
Cross explained at the inquest why he thought the victim wasn't seriously injured, and why he hadn't noticed that the throat was cut: "because of the night being very dark."
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1095  
Old Yesterday, 03:50 PM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 748
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Cross explained at the inquest why he thought the victim wasn't seriously injured, and why he hadn't noticed that the throat was cut: "because of the night being very dark."
Which proves?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1096  
Old Yesterday, 03:56 PM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
Which proves?
I very much doubt that, at this stage, anything can be absolutely proven as regards the Whitechapel murders!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1097  
Old Yesterday, 08:59 PM
drstrange169 drstrange169 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 812
Default

Hello Patrick,

>> We have Paul telling us he helped to "pull down" Nichols' "disarranged" clothing. Yet we have Neil telling us that the victim's clothing was "disarranged" when he came along a few moments later.<<

Also, intriguingly, Mrs Nichols legs are described by Llewellyn differently from how Xmere and Paul encountered them. Which is why I believe somebody moved or nudged the body in some way.


>>Based on this testimony it is a near certainty that someone strangled Nichols unconscious, hid close by as Paul and Lechmere inspected his victim, emerged when they left, cut Nichols throat, "disarranged" her clothing in order to perform mutilations to her abdomen, and simply disappeared, unseen.<<

I'm not convinced that actually happened but it does explain all the inconsistencies, so it can't be dismissed.
__________________
dustymiller
aka drstrange


"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
Fisherman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1098  
Old Yesterday, 09:08 PM
drstrange169 drstrange169 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 812
Default

Hello Steve,


>>The major issues with the abdomen wounds are that from the somewhat limited reports we have there is no indication at all of any major blood vessels being cut.<<

According to Baxter, Llewellyn, at least initially, thought a wound to the abdomen was sufficient to cause instant death. To date, I've not been able to discover what such wound would be. Have you come across anything?
__________________
dustymiller
aka drstrange


"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
Fisherman
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 12:14 AM.


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