Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[paul g]

cross

Could cross have been JTR
ANSWER YES

Is there any direct evidence that proves he was JTR.
ANSWER NO

Is there any circumstantial evidence that points to cross being JTR
ANSWER POSSIBLY DEPENDS HOW YOU INTERPRET THE FACTS AND THE FACTS ONLY, NOT OPINIONS.

Is fishermans postings credible or plausible.
Answer yes.

Can anything that fisherman has posted give any more weight or increase the possibility that cross was Jack.

answer no

Fisherman, I have enjoyed your posts but you have to except that though your theory could be correct others will disagree.

Here is a theory.

Cross finds the body as you state. However 2 minutes earlier PAUL was busy murdering the victim. On hearing cross approaching he runs down a side alley and doubles back on cross so is now behind him.
Paul panicking realizes that the area will be full of police in minutes so in blkiund panic decides to pretend that he is on his way to work. He quickly deduces that iuf he becomes a witness he will be beyond suspicion and in his current state of mind thinks this is the best option and carrys out this plan.

This is possible, plausible but un provable but so is your theory.

[Harry D]

Nevertheless, I stand by how Lechmere is by far the best suspect and the only one who can be argued as warranting a trial!

Hutchinson is a better witness-turned-suspect than Lechmere in my book. What's shiftier, someone finding a body on their route to work, or staking out the victim's house and giving the police an over-elaborate description of a suspect?

[Fisherman]

Could cross have been JTR
ANSWER YES

Is there any direct evidence that proves he was JTR.
ANSWER NO

Is there any circumstantial evidence that points to cross being JTR
ANSWER POSSIBLY DEPENDS HOW YOU INTERPRET THE FACTS AND THE FACTS ONLY, NOT OPINIONS.

Is fishermans postings credible or plausible.
Answer yes.

Can anything that fisherman has posted give any more weight or increase the possibility that cross was Jack.

answer no

Fisherman, I have enjoyed your posts but you have to except that though your theory could be correct others will disagree.

Here is a theory.

Cross finds the body as you state. However 2 minutes earlier PAUL was busy murdering the victim. On hearing cross approaching he runs down a side alley and doubles back on cross so is now behind him.
Paul panicking realizes that the area will be full of police in minutes so in blkiund panic decides to pretend that he is on his way to work. He quickly deduces that iuf he becomes a witness he will be beyond suspicion and in his current state of mind thinks this is the best option and carrys out this plan.

This is possible, plausible but un provable but so is your theory.

Problem 1: Why did Nichols bleed for ten minutes - which she must have done in this scenario.

Problem 2: Paul WAS en route to work - he was hauled in by the police at a later stage, and they will have scrutinized him thoroughly, so he was not lying about the work he had.

Problem 3: There are no side alleys that would work the way you suggest. The closest one is up at the schoolhouse (Queen Anne Road) and that would put him in front of Lechmere.

Problem 4: Paul was scrutinized, and so the time he gave for his departure that morning may well have been checked. And he had but two minuteīs walk to the murder site.

Problem 5: For him to have doubled back, Paul must have passed Lechmere.

Problem 6: Paul wanted to have Lechmere helping him prop Nichols up, at which stage Lechmere would inevitably have seen that the head hung on by the spine only.

Iīm sure that there are other problems too, but I think this is a listing that goes to show that Paul is not a very good candidate.

Lechmere is, though.

[Fisherman]

Hutchinson is a better witness-turned-suspect than Lechmere in my book. What's shiftier, someone finding a body on their route to work, or staking out the victim's house and giving the police an over-elaborate description of a suspect?

Iīll bite, Harry! To me, Hutchinson is Lechmere Light. Super-light even. Airy, sort of. Or heliumfilled. Or whatever it is that inflates him and makes him take off.

Lechmere was directly at the murder site.
Hutch was outside it.

Lechmere did give a false name.
Hutch used to be proposed to have done so, in the olden days when he was Joe Fleming masquerading.

Lechmere told a story that did not dovetail with Mizens story, so we KNOW that one of them told a false story.
Hutchinson is proposed to have concocted a description of A man, but that can in no shape or form be proven.

Lechmere was in close proximity to the victim at a remove in time that suggests that he may have been the killer. There was blood running from the neck some six minutes after Lechmere left the body.
Kelly could have been killed long before or after Hutch was there. The "murder" cries suggest a later TOD. And there is no blood evidence that ties Hutchinsonīs presence ouside the court to an established TOD.

Lechmere is proven to have had logical working paths that would take him past four of the murders.
Hutchinson cannot be shown to have had any such paths at all.

Lechmere is easy to connect to the Stride murder since she was killed inbetween the manu houses where he grew up.
Hutchinson has been proven to have no close connection at all to the immediate vicinity of the murder site.

Eddowes died very close to the route Lechmre must have taken to Broad Street from James Street.
Hutchinson has no such connection proven at all.

Lechmere was out on the streets at the approximate hours when Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly were killed, going by the doctors reports.
Hutchinson can be proven to have been no such thing at all.

Lechmere had reason to carry a knife in his everyday work, to cut the harnesses in case of an accident.
Hutchinson can be proven to have had no such reason at all.

Lechmere is proven to have been at the murder site on the date when the victim died.
It can be reasoned that Hutchinson mistook the days, and was in place the day before the murder. Walter Dew opens up for that.

Thatīs ten points where Lechmere has the upper hand.

Your turn now! Go, go, go...!!!

[Harry D]

Lechmere found the body ON HIS ROUTE TO WORK. So yes, of course he was 'directly at the murder site'. If Lechmere had found a body somewhere he shouldn't have been, then you'd have a great case, Fish. Alas, you don't.

Yes, Lechmere gave the wrong surname, but he gave the right everything else. Granted, that doesn't sound quite as good when you're trying to convince the average Joe that he was the Ripper.

Hutchinson claimed to know the victim, he watched her that night, and then approached the police after the inquest to give them a possible red herring suspect. Looking at both of these witnesses objectively you would have to say that Hutchinson definitely come across as guiltier than Lechmere, but since you've nailed your colours to one particular mast, you're not likely to share this point of view.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Lechmere found the body ON HIS ROUTE TO WORK. So yes, of course he was 'directly at the murder site'. If Lechmere had found a body somewhere he shouldn't have been, then you'd have a great case, Fish. Alas, you don't.

Sorry, Buddy, but thatīs how it goes: Lechmere was very much closer to - and with no obstacle dividing him from - the body.

You say that he was on his way to work, and I donīt see what that has got to do with anything. If he was not the killer, he came upon the body, if he was the killer, he was not solely walking to work.

But either way, he was the one of the two who was in much closer proximity to the victim.

That means that he is the better suspect in this area.

Yes, Lechmere gave the wrong surname, but he gave the right everything else. Granted, that doesn't sound quite as good when you're trying to convince the average Joe that he was the Ripper.

Hutch cannot be proven to have given the wrong name.

That means that Lechmere is the better suspect in this area.

Hutchinson claimed to know the victim, he watched her that night, and then approached the police after the inquest to give them a possible red herring suspect.

Yes, that is one of the very few bits where Hutch has the edge - a suggested prior knowledge of the victim. So itīs 1-10 now. Keep it coming, Harry!

The bit about the red herring suspect, though, is of course conjecture only! Abberline had no problems with it, remember.

Looking at both of these witnesses objectively you would have to say that Hutchinson definitely come across as guiltier than Lechmere, but since you've nailed your colours to one particular mast, you're not likely to share this point of view.

Itīs 1-10, Harry. You are slightly off, mathematically, mate.

Your initial premise, letīs look at that again:

"What's shiftier, someone finding a body on their route to work, or staking out the victim's house and giving the police an over-elaborate description of a suspect?"

So you are not looking at any factual evidence at all here - you simply think that Hutchinson acted in a shifty manner.

To aid that proposal, you dress Hutchinsons actions in sinister words (staking out), whereas you are neutral in Lechmereīs case.

Letīs rephrase things:

Whatīs shiftier, standing outside a friends house, waiting for her to come out or being found all alone at a site where a woman lies very freshly murdered, topping it off by giving the police a false name?

Whoa, Harry. Something happened there, didnīt it?

Now, itīs 1-10. What are you going to do about it?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: Yet again you are ducking and diving with your answers as you always do when issues you raise are challenged with plausible explanations.

I suggest that you have had to back down somewhat from saying he was the killer to now saying he was the probable killer.

Present to me where I have said that I am certaint that he was the killer, or suffer the consequnces. It wonīt hurt, I promise. It is a mere matter of laughing you off the boards.

Let me now re clarify another issue which you have failed to interpret correctly with regards to his appearance at a police station. I say that when he attended he would not have been first asked his name that would have come later after it had been ascertained the reason for his visit and what he was bringing to the table as evidence.

Do you accept, that we do not know what happened at the police station, what was said, or how the error with his name arose. Or do you suggest that it was a deliberate act by him to impede and mislead the investigation? Yes or no will suffice. Its a plain and simple question requiring a plain and simple answer.

The suggestion that he gave the name Cross and no other name is incredibly much better that the suggestion of a screw-up in behalf of the police. And I wonīt ask you to verify it, since it is totally unnecessary.

Further more do you accept that whatever the error and however it occurred, was soon clarified to the satisfaction of all parties and that there was nothing sinister behind this? Again Yes or no will suffice. Its another plain and simple question requiring a plain and simple answer.

No. Of course I do not accept that there was nothing sinister behind it. That has to be the strangest question ever asked on these boards. The whole point is that I suspect this man of murder, Trevor. How would I reconcile that with accepting that there were no sinister reasons behind his nameswop? And whatīs this garble about "the satisfaction of all parties"? Of course the polic would not be satisfied by being given the wrong name. But if they donīt discover that this has happened, why would they protest?
Dear me, Trevor - you do say the weirdest things.

Now, whatīs next? A question of whether I accept that he was nothing but a nice guy? A question whether I accept that he would never lie to Mizen? Or what?

As to Griffiths making this unusual comment about him not running it is nothing more than that an unusual comment, and just because he is a retired police officer that comment holds no more evidential value from him, than if made by my aunt fanny.

But were you not the one who tried to pull rank, pretending that I did not have any experience of police stations and their work? Whereas you did? Well, well...!
So let me get this right! Since you are an e-copper, you have the upper hand in understanding all things criminally related? But since Griffiths is also an ex-copper, he does not have the upper hand in understanding all things criminally related?

Thatīs the god thing about debating with you, Trevor - you seem predestined to get yourself into these trousertangling antics. One can always count on a laugh or two.

Yes and the laughs are usually on you but you are so blinkered you cant see that. You have your own agenda. You are like Mike Hawley and Tumblety your rely on secondary sources and constantly use them to back up you arguments, despite many of the articles conflicting with each you cherry pick the bits that suit, and the bits that dont you ignore.

As to Lechmere running away, why dont you do a survey on here and ask how many would have stayed and how many would have run given being in the same situation. Even my Aunt Fanny would get this answer right.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Yes and the laughs are usually on you but you are so blinkered you cant see that. You have your own agenda. You are like Mike Hawley and Tumblety your rely on secondary sources and constantly use them to back up you arguments, despite many of the articles conflicting with each you cherry pick the bits that suit, and the bits that dont you ignore.

As to Lechmere running away, why dont you do a survey on here and ask how many would have stayed and how many would have run given being in the same situation. Even my Aunt Fanny would get this answer right.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A poll? On how many of the Casebookers would have run if they had killed Nichols and Paul came along?

I think I will leave that in your competent hands, Trevor.

As for sources, I rely on primary as well as secondary sources. How does that make me stand out, Trevor? Who discards all paper sources out here?

Now, Trevor, you and me are going to take a look at how you argue. And we will concentrate on this sentence of yours from your former masterpiece of a post:

"...do you accept that whatever the error and however it occurred, was soon clarified to the satisfaction of all parties and that there was nothing sinister behind this?"

I want you to explain how the "error" was clarified "to the satisfaction of all parties" and how we can tell that "there was nothing sinister behind this".

Is it not true, Trevor, that all we actually know it that the carman was called Cross in the police reports?
Is it not true that the only satisfaction aimed for primarily on behalf of the police is to secure a name?
Unless they suspect that something is wrong, they will not investigate or otherwise question the name they get. They work from an assumption that they have been given the correct name.

So that is the satisfaction on behalf of the police taken care of.

As for Lechmere, if he was the killer and wanted to hide his real name, then one must assume that he too was satisifed to get recorded as "Cross".

We therefore have that satisfaction on both parts that you are speaking about.

The problem is, Trevor, that you want us to believe that if nobody was discontent with the name given, then we should accept that everything was kosher. Being an ex-copper you should be able to answer the question that arises:
Is it not incredibly stupid to accept such a thing?

So why did you speak of how all parties were "satisfied", Trevor? To what exact avail was it? What did you hope to achieve by it? Did you think that everybody would go "Wow, heīs right - that proves that Lechmere had no bad intentions"?

Did you, Trevor?

Wherefrom do you get these kinds of arguments? Donīt you see that they are absolutely nothing but a waste of time? If Peter Sutcliffe had called himself Tubby Botherington when he was hauled in by the police, do you think that the police would have said "No, that is not satisfying"?
Or would they write the name down, and be satisfied until any further check could be made?

I need to know, Trevor - what posessed you to make an argument like this? How was it supposed to work? Iīm genuinely interested. Fascinated, even.

[RivkahChaya]

Careful, Trevor - you are not supposed to admit that there was an error as such.

PC Cross had been dead for nineteen long years when Lechmere stepped into the cop shop.

The first thing you do when stepping into a police station to make a statement is to state your name: "My name is Charles Lechmere, and I want to report ..."

After that, there is of course the chance that he mentioned that he had once had a PC stepfather, but that would not make the police use his stepfathers name. They would already have been informed about his real name.

Finally, he would arguably have signed the interview himself. If he wrote Lechmere on it, as he should have done, then why would the coppers not use that name?

Since he went down as Cross - and yes, that WAS in error, just as you say - he would also have presented himself as Cross and signed himself as Cross.

Speculation is fine, but it needs to be credible, Trevor.

He still could have mentioned that he was Cross's stepson, and if thew officer taking the report happened to have known Cross, he may have done something like written "Cross" at the top of the paper to remind himself of who he was talking to-- the way police used to take Poloroids of witnesses when there were several to keep track of (now there's a Smartphone app). The police probably jotted things down on every witness sheet to help remember one witness from another.

[Fisherman]

He still could have mentioned that he was Cross's stepson, and if thew officer taking the report happened to have known Cross, he may have done something like written "Cross" at the top of the paper to remind himself of who he was talking to-- the way police used to take Poloroids of witnesses when there were several to keep track of (now there's a Smartphone app). The police probably jotted things down on every witness sheet to help remember one witness from another.

We can always conjure up different scenarios, Rivkah. I could probably come up with a few myself if I wanted to explain how the name Cross came to be entered in the police reports - and the name Lechmere not. And I could definitely see to it that they could not be disproven!

I canīt prove that Paul was not the killer, as suggested earlier today. He could have been. But the suggestion is not a very good one.
Similarly, I canīt completely rule out your suggestion either. But the same thing applies - it is not a very good one.

You are seemingly suggesting that the name Lechmere was spoken by the carman, who presented himself by that name and then he said "I used to have a stepfather who was a PC, named Thomas Cross".

Is that about correct?

If so, why would anybody write the name "Cross" on the report, if the carman had not claimed to call himself by that name? To remember his long dead stepdad?

And where did the name Lechmere go? Did the officer forget to take that down?

How would the name Cross make it easier to remember the carman, by the way? It is a common name, whereas Lechmere is anything but. If the officer wantet to be able to remember and tell him apart, than that would be the better choice.

In the end, it is somewhat moot for me to argue against the proposition you make. It will not make it go away. It is therefore so much the more important to keep in mid tht it can only be one of the myriads of outside possibilities regularly brought forward to try and save the carmans behind. Th defence for him is built on a great number of suggestions along the line "things are not always what they seem to be".

That is true.

And it is equally true that they normally ARE exactly what they seem to be.

In this case, it seems he tried to hide his real name from police and inquest. And that is probably exactly what he did.

[Harry D]

You say that he was on his way to work, and I donīt see what that has got to do with anything.

Because it doesn't show anything out of the ordinary, Fish. I thought that would've been obvious. Lechmere was on his way to work, like any other day, only this time he happened to find a corpse along his route.

I almost feel sorry for this guy. Here we have ostensibly a hardworking family man whose name has been dragged through the mud in order to depict him as one of the most notorious serial killers of all time, all because he found the first victim and used his stepfather's surname.

[Trevor Marriott]

A poll? On how many of the Casebookers would have run if they had killed Nichols and Paul came along?

I think I will leave that in your competent hands, Trevor.

As for sources, I rely on primary as well as secondary sources. How does that make me stand out, Trevor? Who discards all paper sources out here?

Now, Trevor, you and me are going to take a look at how you argue. And we will concentrate on this sentence of yours from your former masterpiece of a post:

"...do you accept that whatever the error and however it occurred, was soon clarified to the satisfaction of all parties and that there was nothing sinister behind this?"

I want you to explain how the "error" was clarified "to the satisfaction of all parties" and how we can tell that "there was nothing sinister behind this".

Is it not true, Trevor, that all we actually know it that the carman was called Cross in the police reports?
Is it not true that the only satisfaction aimed for primarily on behalf of the police is to secure a name?
Unless they suspect that something is wrong, they will not investigate or otherwise question the name they get. They work from an assumption that they have been given the correct name.

So that is the satisfaction on behalf of the police taken care of.

As for Lechmere, if he was the killer and wanted to hide his real name, then one must assume that he too was satisifed to get recorded as "Cross".

We therefore have that satisfaction on both parts that you are speaking about.

The problem is, Trevor, that you want us to believe that if nobody was discontent with the name given, then we should accept that everything was kosher. Being an ex-copper you should be able to answer the question that arises:
Is it not incredibly stupid to accept such a thing?

So why did you speak of how all parties were "satisfied", Trevor? To what exact avail was it? What did you hope to achieve by it? Did you think that everybody would go "Wow, heīs right - that proves that Lechmere had no bad intentions"?

Did you, Trevor?

Wherefrom do you get these kinds of arguments? Donīt you see that they are absolutely nothing but a waste of time? If Peter Sutcliffe had called himself Tubby Botherington when he was hauled in by the police, do you think that the police would have said "No, that is not satisfying"?
Or would they write the name down, and be satisfied until any further check could be made?

I need to know, Trevor - what posessed you to make an argument like this? How was it supposed to work? Iīm genuinely interested. Fascinated, even.

It is quite simple for those who want to understand, but for you who doesn't want to accept more plausible explanations it become hard and your posts contain more attacks on the posters than positive comments.

The police had access and in fact more than has been available today. Yet they nor did the coroner think anything untoward about him giving different names. So why is it that you and Inspector Gadget have gone on a mission to suggest that all of the authorities were incompetent in 1888 and totally missed out catching a killer.

If the same circumstances prevailed today everything about this man and his movements would have been checked. That`s basic police procedures I am sure the same prevailed in 1888.

Going on Montys comments about assumptions it is right to assume then that the police did check on him and as there is no mention of him ever becoming anything other than a man who found the body of a murdered woman.Whatever the explanation for the name error was given at some point and must have been accepted, otherwise he might have been recorded as a suspect or more mention made of him.

You seek to rely on unreliable timings, on newspaper articles which cannot be relied upon. In addition you rely on your own interpretation of what you term blood evidence, and again you accept and reject which ever expert does not concur with you on this.

All in all you have a just a theory, one of hundred that make up Ripperolgy.

I am not going to bother even discussing this further with you.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Monty]

It is quite simple for those who want to understand, but for you who doesn't want to accept more plausible explanations it become hard and your posts contain more attacks on the posters than positive comments.

The police had access and in fact more than has been available today. Yet they nor did the coroner think anything untoward about him giving different names. So why is it that you and Inspector Gadget have gone on a mission to suggest that all of the authorities were incompetent in 1888 and totally missed out catching a killer.

If the same circumstances prevailed today everything about this man and his movements would have been checked. That`s basic police procedures I am sure the same prevailed in 1888.

Going on Montys comments about assumptions it is right to assume then that the police did check on him and as there is no mention of him ever becoming anything other than a man who found the body of a murdered woman.Whatever the explanation for the name error was given at some point and must have been accepted, otherwise he might have been recorded as a suspect or more mention made of him.

You seek to rely on unreliable timings, on newspaper articles which cannot be relied upon. In addition you rely on your own interpretation of what you term blood evidence, and again you accept and reject which ever expert does not concur with you on this.

All in all you have a just a theory, one of hundred that make up Ripperolgy.

I am not going to bother even discussing this further with you.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Clearly Christer has yet to read my book, which explains statement taking, and Coroners Officer duties (validation of witnesses and their statements, assisting the coroner in selection of witnesses to appear etc), along with Inquest procedure (including summons action etc).

Its a classic case of picking and choosing evidence to fit a suspect and theory, rather than following no matter where it leads.

Monty

[c.d.]

Here is a question -- was it possible in 1888 to become a Scotland Yard detective without first being a P.C. or were they all promoted having initially been a P.C.?

Thanks for your answers.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

Here is a question -- was it possible in 1888 to become a Scotland Yard detective without first being a P.C. or were they all promoted having initially been a P.C.?

Thanks for your answers.

c.d.

A police Constable and a Detective Constable are equal in rank. The selection to CID takes different forms. Some officers request that dept and are then appraised as to their suitability. Others who show additional police qualities are invited.

It is not a promotion, as the detective still retains his constable status

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk