A new critique of the Cross/Lechmere theory from Stewart Evans

[Lechmere]

Robert
Was Tabram left ‘on display’? Yes.

I’m taking this from Scotland Yard Investigates which was co-authored by somebody called Stewart P. Evans:
‘He discovered Tabram as he was leaving home to seek work; she was lying on her back in a pool of blood. Reeves immediately informed the patrolling beat police officer…’
This tells us that the victim’s status (dead) was obvious to Reeves – quite unlike Nichols.
Also it is noticeable that despite being on his way to work, Reeves took the time to find a policeman and correctly appraise him of the situation. Again unlike in the case of Nichols’s body being discovered.

Anyway there’s more…
‘She was lying on her back, her hands by her sides and tightly clenched, ad her legs apart. Her clothing was turned up as far as the centre of her body, leaving the lower part exposed… There was a deal of blood between the legs’

I was very interested to discover what you would do first thing in the morning if you were Jack the Ripper.

[Robert]

Hi Fish

Well, I don't know about the Lechmere express. It seems more like a slow train in Kelly's case. Notice that he does not kill her in the alley. Instead he walks with her into her room and lets her get undressed as if he had all the time in the world.

Re Tabram, I thought you were arguing that she was a Lechmere victim. As far as I am aware, we don't have any reports of anyone passing a man on the stair in the building, and the police would have questioned all the occupants. So what could have disturbed the killer?

Whoever the murderer was, I can understand if he was disturbed at the Stride murder, and even the Nichols murder. But if you also include a disturbance at the Tabram murder, then perhaps I might appeal to Lady Bracknell : "To lose one evisceration may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose two eviscerations may be regarded as a double misfortune. To lose three eviscerations, looks like carelessness."

[Robert]

Hi Lechmere

Well, if that's from Stewart and Don then OK. But I still don't see how the murder times really tally with any fixed time for Cross to start work.

[Lechmere]

Robert
Lechmere had to be in work at 4 am – at least that was the given time for 31st August.
His shortest route to work would have taken him down Old Montague Street and Wentworth Street crossing the top of George Yard. If he had taken that route that morning he would have passed within 20 yards of Martha Tabram’s undiscovered dead body.
Alfred Crow probably saw Tabram’s body in the dark at 3.30 am.
It doesn’t take much to place Lechmere there shortly before this – maybe at 2.45 am to agree with Killeen’s estimated time of death.
It may have been his first attack, certainly his first successful street attack, and so maybe he left early to make sure he found a victim. Who knows?
So far as I’m concerned, establishing that another unsolved murder took place just a few yards from Lechmere’s shortest route to work and that if he had taken that route that day he would have walked past the victim’s undiscovered body is quite sufficient to establish proximity.
You may disagree.

[Robert]

But Lechmere, what is Cross supposed to have told his wife, when he is leaving home more than an hour before he needs to?

[Jenni Shelden]

Why did you create a thread ?how many Cross threads do you need ?Etiquette would dictate replying in the thread the point was made in and not reposting someones posts elsewhere out of context .

[Lechmere]

Robert
One more bit...
On Tabram’s ‘display’, Dew had this to say in I Caught Crippen:
‘The dead woman was lying in a pool of blood. Her clothing had been disarranged, and even without close examination the signs of horrible mutilation were obvious.’

What did Lechmere tell his wife?
Let me think… maybe she was asleep and he just left early without telling her anything.
No, wait a minute I’ve thought of another one… maybe he told her he had to get into work early.
Or what about this… maybe be ruled the roost and didn’t have to explain himself to his wife.
Couldn't you think of any of these?

There wasn’t a Ripper scare going on at the time.
But by the time of the Nichols murder – hey! I’ve just thought of something.
Maybe that’s why he attended the inquest in his work clothes and apron. Maybe he didn’t want his wife to think he was going to the inquest as his night time habits had become a little erratic and he didn’t want her to grow suspicious.

Jenni
You aren’t obliged to read any of the threads that don’t interest you.
The posts that I reposted here – verbatim, not out of context – were put in a thread that was set up to discuss a particular theory of Mr Lucky’s. Putting those posts on Mr Lucky’s thread was way off topic.
I did not feel comfortable ruining Mr Lucky’s thread with way off topic discussions. I think that is bad etiquette. Hence I decided to set up a separate thread to discuss the issues which will be lengthy and complex.
I am in the process of composing a partial response by the way.
I have not forced anyone to follow the discussion to this new thread. Just as you are not forced to read any of it, if it displeases you.
If you think there are too many Cross threads then perhaps you should ask that they be banned.

[Jenni Shelden]

I don't think what Stewat said was wrong but its the kind of thing others have said before only more detailed and here we are still
Jenni

[Lechmere]

Jenni
Just like in every other suspect thread - except most 'suspects' have their own little sub section.
Hopefully you will be open minded enough to weigh and evaluate the eventual responses to Stewart Evans' posts - if you allow yourself to read them!

[Robert]

I don't think he needed to worry about anyone becoming suspicious, Lechmere. He bloodily mutilates women, excises their organs and then takes them into work with him. His wife who does his laundry doesn't notice anything amiss...I'd say he was safe as houses.

[Lechmere]

He was a carman working for Pickfords. He will have had to keep his van, horse and tackle clean. Do you think he may have been able to clean his own clothes at the same time, were they spotted with blood?
Do you think he may have had a cubby hole of some sort in his horses stable - where he kept the tack?

If the culprit was some other person I am curious to know how you think this person disguised his blood soaked garments which you seem to picture him wearing, and those human organs - what did he do with them?
Did he live in a lodging house - unlikely - no privacy at all.
A singe man - a toff with an apartment?
What exactly do you envisage?

And do you think the culprit fled each crime scene dripping in blood, carrying joints of slippery human flesh? Where did he go? You must have somewhere in mind.

[Fisherman]

Robert:

Well, I don't know about the Lechmere express. It seems more like a slow train in Kelly's case. Notice that he does not kill her in the alley. Instead he walks with her into her room and lets her get undressed as if he had all the time in the world.

How can we tell that he did not? Are we bound to a promise to only accept that he could be the killer if we can fit the strike in with a trek starting out from Doveton Street at 3.20 AM? Or can we envisage that he may have given himself more time on some occasions? Would that be to break the rules of the game ...?

Re Tabram, I thought you were arguing that she was a Lechmere victim. As far as I am aware, we don't have any reports of anyone passing a man on the stair in the building, and the police would have questioned all the occupants. So what could have disturbed the killer?

I am arguing that she may well have been a Ripper victim. The geography of the strike means that anybody who has Lechmere as the killer must take an active interest in the Tabram slaying - she was found dead a very short stretch from Old Montague Street, and the timing roughly fits too.

What could have disturbed the killer? Really, Robert ...! Surely you can think of many a reason? I know I can. Any sound from inside one of the flats, for example, perhaps giving him the idea that somebody was on the verge of coming out onto the landing to go to the loo? How about that? Will it do?

It may have been the killer´s first strike. His nerves may have been on the outside of his shirt. And I am not saying that he WAS disturbed, I am saying that claiming that he was not is a hard thing to do. But you did it anyway...! And in the end, this discussion is somewhat moot since Tabram was NOT left with her clothes down the way you suggested.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Hi Lechmere

The problem of how the killer cleaned himself up/disguised the bloodstains/whether or not he donned old clothes for the murders etc is a problem for any theory, whoever the suspect is. But it is a particular problem for the Cross theory because the man was actually turning up at work a few minutes after committing the murders. Furthermore he has to hide the organs at his place of work. If the hidey-hole was in his own special area then the risk of discovery was less but the evidence in the event of discovery more damning. If the hidey-hole was in a communal area then the evidence was less damning but the risk of discovery greater. Anyway, the whole thing sounds bizarre, or maybe it's just me.

[Wickerman]

Anyway, the whole thing sounds bizarre, or maybe it's just me.

No, its not just you Robert.

[Robert]

Hi Fish

Well, first of all I don't see Kelly's killer as a punter whom she brought home but I don't want to sidetrack things by getting into all that, so for the sake of argument I'll accept your scenario that she brought Cross home. So why did he let her undress? Was he going to have sex with her?

I'll also for the sake of argument adopt an earlier TOD for Chapman to give him time to kill her and get to work. He doesn't seem to wash his hands in the yard, but let's suppose he does that somewhere or other.

The thing is, having Cross kill Nichols opportunistically might work - man on way to work sees drunken prostitute staggering in the road, quickly kills her.

It might at a pinch work for Chapman too.

But with Kelly and Tabram, you have him leaving extra early in order to find and kill a victim. So the question is, how many times do you think he did this? Are we to assume that these were the only two occasions when he left early, and that he hit the bullseye both times? Or did he leave early on other nights, but had no luck - maybe he had to abort the attack because he heard a noise?

You see, given your premiss that the Ripper went out positively looking for women to murder, then I can well imagine the Ripper trudging round all night until he felt confident enough to kill a woman - no one coming, the spot secluded enough etc - provided the Ripper was unemployed. If however you have the Ripper employed, then one has to ask, realistically how many times could he do this? It seems to require that the Ripper struck lucky more or less every time that he tried. And yes, this is an objection to Druitt too, though not to, say, Kosminski or Cutbush or Tumblety.

BTW, to Lechmere : I think you said that Cross had a large family (apologies if wrong). I would venture to suggest that Cross would have had more privacy in a common lodging house than he would have at home.