Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Fisherman]

No, Sally, I was just amazed that you should wish me luck. More often than not, you are very disparaging about Lechmere and his candidacy, so I was simply taken by surprise.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally:

"Good Luck with your article."

Luck?

The best,
Fisherman

Er - yes, Fisherman, luck. It's the traditional thing to wish a person embarking on any endeavour.

Of course, you may feel that you don't require luck, if you have a watertight case against Cross already.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Good Luck with your article."

Luck?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Any criteria such as where his mother lived,how his childs death affected him,which roads he traversed is incidental.It does not show they caused him to cut and mutilate Nicholls.

.. And is purely speculative to boot.

Fisherman -

I see that the Cross thing is still ongoing and that it's in exactly the same place as it was a month ago. I'm not sure that bodes well for your man if you fancy him as the Ripper.

Well. Getting back to first principles, either you have evidence to incriminate Cross or you don't.

As you say you will write something for Ripperologist one can only hope your position is the former; else I doubt that you'll get much credence for your view - simply because your unsupported opinion is insufficient to create or prove a case - as would any opinion be.

I should think Charles Lechmere will get the place he merits as a suspect - as have others.

Good Luck with your article.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Cross cannot be placed immediately prior to or in contact with any victim at time of death".

Lechmere CAN be placed in the immediate vicinity of where Nichols died. He did not materialize there after her death, Harry.He was in close proximity to Nichols when she was cut and when she lay dead there. The timing schedule allows for no other interpretation.

"He says he was on his way to work,and came upon her body lying there.There is no information that contradicts his statement."

... just as there is no information gainsaying that he could have lied and been her killer. And just as there is nothing at all that in any way PROVES that he was just a working man en route to job.

Itīs funny, by the way, how people cannot accept that "working men en route to job" can ALSO be killers. Are we still looking for madmen only? Were people who did not end up in a police protocol automatically not guilty?
Try and look away from the societal status Lechmere upheld. It gets in the way repeatedly, and is far too often presented as some sort of guarantee that he could not have done it. It is no such thing.

"Any criteria such as where his mother lived,how his childs death affected him,which roads he traversed is incidental."

Any? No matter how it looks? Who made THAT call...? Of course it is of the utmost interest that Lechmere seemingly could not go to job and visit his mother without having the streets he traversed strewn with victims. How anybody could claim that this is something that is mere coincidence is beyond me. To claim that it COULD be coincidental is just fine - to say that it must be is not.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
It is not advice, and you are quite correct that all named(by you) suspects fail the test.Cross cannot be placed immediately prior to or in contact with any victim at time of death,a must have,considering how they were killed.You, despite any other criteria,must show that Cross was lying in his testimony,if you persist in him having killed Nicholls.Probably,could have been is not good enough.He says he was on his way to work,and came upon her body lying there.There is no information that contradicts his statement.Any criteria such as where his mother lived,how his childs death affected him,which roads he traversed is incidental.It does not show they caused him to cut and mutilate Nicholls.

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"Terrific! Great news! You can address them here and NOW!"

I am not the authority to ask these questions, Curious. Not by a long way. Others have researched the man more thoroughly, and will have more to say on this. Myself, I am dealing in the more tangible details of the case, so to speak.

Of course, I could offer my own views, but please take them for what they are: facts mixed with hunches and guesswork.

When it comes to the stressor you are looking for, I would say that there may of course have been such a thing added in his life. But it could equally be that something was subtracted. Something that had held him back before could have disappeared, unleashing the killer within him.

There is a little something known about Lechmere after 1888. It seems he ended his work at Pickfordīs and opened up a small shop. He left a useful sum of money after him when he died in 1920. The picture of a responsible citizen, resourcefully and merrily working his way to the grave, is upheld.

Eddowes? Perhaps she was what the police thought at the time: a woman who had to pay for his failure with Stride. She was slain in Mitre Square, dominated by the Kearley & Tonge warehouse, a company that dealt in tea. As did Pickfordīs, the way I understand things. Arguably, it would have been a place that Lechmere could have visited earlier in a professional respect, meaning that he may have been quite well aquainted to the different escape routes. And the apron ends up in Goulston Street, which was pretty much on the quickest route home to Doveton Street for our carman. Old Montague Street would bring him home in a jiffy, unless he chose the more northern route of Hanbury Street. It would take a bit longer, but would also have the advantage of taking him further away from Berner Street.
The quickest choice altogether would probably have been Whitechapel Road, but that would have brought him too close for comfort to the Stride murder site, swarming with cops. It would have been logical to do what he apparently did - move a bit further north before heading east.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"There can be no case against Cross,unless evidence can be shown that immediately before,or during the killing,Cross was in her company."

There already is one, Harry. Itīs being discussed on this very thread. And that is because OTHER criteria than the one you favour ALSO are of importance.

If we were to go by your advice, then there could be no case against Druitt, Kosminsky, Tumblety, Kelly, Bury, Cohen, Levy, Issenschmidt, Chapman, Stephen, Le Grand etcetera - they are all dead ducks in this respect. And I for one would not be the one to tell Wescott that he is dealing with a useless suspect. Will you do it for me?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"You don't have police suspicion against Cross"

Correct. And I have a police corps who came up with all the wrong suspects.

"to call him a suspect, you have to come up with something else, such as a subsequent criminal career."

But would you not say that a proven criminal career is something we would know of courtesy of the police?

Meaning, of course, that if he DID have a criminal record at the time, the police would have taken a lot more of an interest in him, especially if that criminal record was crammed with violence against women.

But he had no such record. And the police were looking for no such man. They were doing it the Wescott way: Find somebody who howls at the moon and who has a criminal record.

"If all you got is his route to work and his mother's house, you're just pissing in the wind."

How very convenient, then, that I have more.

"And don't forget, Cross was something of an old man."

Now that is a VERY damning circumstance, I canīt fault you on that one. He was 38, a full tree years, or something like that, older than Le Grand

Sometimes, Tom, I sense that you are not being all that serious...

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

There can be no case against Cross,unless evidence can be shown that immediately before,or during the killing,Cross was in her company.Everything else is after the fact,non incriminating information.That it was physically possible for Cross to kill a person has no meaning unless it can be shown there was the opportunity to kill Nicholls by being in a position to do so.All that can be shown,by his(Cross)addmission is that she(Nicholls)was dead before Cross arrived..

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fish. I'm just saying it's a cop out. You don't have police suspicion against Cross, so to call him a suspect, you have to come up with something else, such as a subsequent criminal career. If all you got is his route to work and his mother's house, you're just pissing in the wind. And don't forget, Cross was something of an old man.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

I was thinking of Packer, the lodger, and FH letter. What MJK hoax was there?

Oh, OK. you were counting the hoaxes directly. I was going by cases: #1 potentially Nichols (per Birch), #2 Stride, #3 Eddowes, #4 potentially MJK (if there were an Astrakhan Man connection to be researched).

[curious]

C

Boy, will I disappoint you ...!

A/ I will not touch upon any stressors at all.
B/ I will not write a single word on Lechmereīs life post 1888.
C/ Eddowes will not enter my article in any shape or form.
D/ The apron will also be left uncommented on by me.



All the best,
Fisherman

Terrific! Great news! You can address them here and NOW!

Yea!

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"I must say your Dennis Rader argument is a little too convenient. "

As is the Kürten argument, I take it?

Why? Not, I hope, because they offer corroboration to my statement that seemingly well-behaved family men may be serial killers? Gacy, by the way, was much the same.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"The head of an unconscious person behaves in precisely the same manner, Fish. But we are dealing here with a crime scene so dark that neither Cross nor Paul noticed the gaping wound inflicted to Nichols’ throat or the blood flowing from it. I therefore doubt that the angle of inclination of Nichols’ head would have been immediately obvious to either man."

No, the head of an unconscious person does not behave in the same manner as that of a nearly decapitated person. Gravity will have an effect on both, yes, but the head of a nearly decapitated person will be all over the place in another manner. That aside, just like I said, a propping up would have made the men very wet with blood, and the question as such is therefore moot.

"the man who killed and mutilated Polly Nichols would have been bloodstained. Even if he’d wiped his hands and knife on Nichols’ clothing, he wouldn’t have removed every trace of blood. There would have been residual staining in the creases of his hands and under his fingernails."

Before we mention the word "gloves" I would like to know just when and how he would necessarily have gotten blood on him. There were no signs of any gush of blood, and there was only little blood underneath her, most of the liquid having been soaked into her clothes.
So when did he get blood on him?
Was it when he held her head by the jaw with his left hand and cut away with the right? Did the blood shoot out in a jet at that stage, and if so - why was there no evidence of a jet on the ground afterwards?
Or was it when he cut her stomach open, resulting in the blood not flowing out over her clothes, but instead seeping back into the abdominal cavity, as witnessed about by the experts at the time? Did some of the blood not want to join in in the seeping, instead lunging at him?
Is it not true, Garry, that much as we may want to believe that he was bloodied, there is no way that we can establish that he must have been so? Is it not equally true that there were no signs at all of blood flying about at the murder site?

"you are here ignoring the fact that Cross was emphatic in his refusal to touch the body."

I am no such thing. I have highlighted that very detail numerous times, pointing to the very possible occurrence that he did this in order to avoid Paul from detecting what had happened to Nichols. He never refused to touch the body at all, Garry - he DID touch it, both hands and face, and after that, he had all he needed to explain any blood on him.

"Then why did Cross contradict the opinion expressed by Paul and state his belief that the woman was dead?"

As such, he did not contradict Paul, since his verdict came before Pauls, judging by the Daily Telegraph. It was Paul who contradicted Lechmere. Why Lechmere chose the alternative he did, I canīt say - but if he had been very optimistic about the woman only having passed out or being drunk, it must be noted that such a thing would call very much for a propping up and a serious effort to bring her around. If both men agreed that she was dead, then no propping up in the world would help her, meaning that Lechmere would not have to deal with that particular difficulty. As it happens, Paul did not concur fully, and Lechmere had to step in and stop Pauls plans for a prop.
We must also keep in mind that IF they were both satisfied that she was dead, then the much more probable cause of death would have been a heart attack, a stroke or something along those lines. The first guess in such a case would not be "she has probably been killed and eviscerated", would it?

But this is a field open to speculation, so itīs hard to make any safe call, as you will appreciate. Maybe Lechmere wanted to spook Paul, maybe he enjoyed the charade, maybe ...

"And was contradicted by others. You might care to read the account provided by The Star in this context, Fish. It seems that you are citing only those sources which concur with your hypothesis and disregarding those that don’t. But then, this should come as no great surprise given your remarkable volte-face with regard to the Berner Street murder."

How very decent and gentlemanly of you, Garry! Yes, the Star says that "witness took the deceasedīs hand" and found it cold. What the Star does NOT say, however, is whether he felt her face or not. Itīs either or. Meaning that when we find that the Daily Telegraph, the Daily News, the Echo ALL say that Lechmere touched hands AND face, we may need to realize that they do not convey CONTRADICTING information but instead FULLER information.

But no, thatīs not how you see things - you prefer to suggest that I am intentionally leading the readers astray in an effort to exclude important evidence.
How nice of you.

You are furthermore saying that nobody should be surprised if I did just that, after my "remarkable volte-face with regard to the Berner Street murder". But there was never any such thing - I have very recently told you that I do not read any of the evidence connected to the Stride murder in any way differently then I have done before. But I DO accept that the GEOGRAPHICAL placing of the murder tallies with the potential movement patterns of Charles Lechmere.

The last time over I dealt with this issue I mentioned the word Kindergarten. That still stands. Now I suggest that you refrain from accusations like the one you just made yourself guilty of, and instead discuss the matter in a less inflamed and more sober manner.

"Head? Do you mean face? The same face that was apparently neither bloodstained nor touched by Cross?"

The face is situated on the head. Unless you just lost it. Of course, you may loose your head too, but then it will take the face along in the fall.
What I am saying here is of course that "touching the face" may well involve touching the throat too. If you put your hand over the cheek of a woman, then the lower part of the palm will come in close contact with the throat. But if I had written that Lechmere had touched the throat, I was convinced that you would answer "But he said he touched the face, not the throat!". Thus I thought Iīd save myself the trouble by using the more "covering" expression "head", to which the face belongs. Oh, and I think we may conclude that the face WAS touched by Lechmere. It was the Star that did not touch upon it...

Could we not spare me the trouble of going through all of these accusations and all this hostility in the future? Just asking? It would make for a better discussion. I can do it both ways, but I prefer the reciprocally informative one, since the boards benefit from it.

The best,
Fisherman