Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Monty]

Monty:

"When you prove it Fish, then I'll be in a position to disprove it."

Actually, if you COULD disprove it, it would be because I could never prove it in the first place. Similarly, if I DID prove it, youŽd be in no position to disprove it. But donŽt worry, I wonŽt prove it - I will only make a very good case for it. And then you can joke about that.

The best,
Fisherman

The track record on trying to prove it on this thread has failed woefully.

The track record on trying to persuade others the validity of Cross has fallen likewise.

You make an average case. Your Cornwallian approach does you no favours either.

Monty

[Hunter]

.
But we have more on Lechmere, as has been pointed out. We have him alone with a victim who - according to Paul - actually still twitched when he felt her chest

Come on man. Do you really believe that? This is neither sound reasoning or sound research.

He thought she might still be breathing too. He was wrong of course ( her throat was cut and she'd been disemboweled) but he was confused, concerned, and didn't know what had happened.

Neither did Cross.

[Ben]

Hi Garry,

Thanks for that interesting detail on the geo-profiling issue (going back a few pages!)

Hi Fisherman,

But there would have been the possibility to pull a blanket over Kelly, at least ... (and donŽt tell me about the flesh on the table - I KNOW that already

But, but...the flesh on the table. How's a single (non-absorbent?) blanket going to cover that lot up? No, the pulling down of the skirts is far more likely to have been a delaying manoeuvre on the real killer's part than a "deflecting" one on Cross's.

Correct - no guarantee, only good reason to believe so.

Not that either, I'm afraid. Moreover, if Cross could hear Paul all the way from Brady Street, it makes even less sense for the former to stay rooted to the spot when he had the chance to put considerable between him and the crime scene before Paul arrived.

Different mileage, perhaps ...?

Different footwear more likely.

You are forgetting that Lechmere himself stated that if there had been anybody leaving the street after he had entered it, he would have noticed it.

Right, but what was Paul going to do, realistically, at the sight of another man disappearing in the distance? Immediately assume something was wrong and sound the alarm? Hardly.

You are also forgetting the fact that Paul was good news to Lechmere in at least one context - he provided a safe journey out.

...Which wasn't nearly so safe as departing the scene alone, and before anyone had a chance to discover that a woman had been murdered.

And lo and behold - they just happen to take place in spots where he had reason to pass every morning, and they ALSO take place at the approximate TIME when he would have done so....So this is what happens when we check out how Lechmere relates to the other murder cases involved - he nails them, one by one.

And lo and behold, all of that is completely untrue, as has been pointed out numerous times. He doesn't nail them "one by one" at all. His "connections" to the other crime scenes are either non-existent or tenuous in the extreme. The timing doesn't work for Cross either in at least two ripper-attributed murders. I'd definitely hold off on the repetition of previously challenged arguments, and focus instead on this research that you hope to produce.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Thanks for that interesting detail on the geo-profiling issue (going back a few pages!)

Thanks, Ben. What I related was only a statistical probability rather than concrete certainty, but one has to be fair when evaluating the claims of others.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"And that’s the central flaw in your hypothesis, Fish. Unlike Paul, the cold-blooded and cunning Cross refused to touch Nichols, despite the fact that this would have permitted him to explain away any bloodstaining to his hands or clothing in the event of a policeman happening upon the scene. Had he been the arch manipulator you would have us believe, he would have been only too happy to assist Paul in the repositioning of Nichols’ body. But he wasn’t. And that ought to be telling you something."

Dear me, Garry - what ARE you talking about? Propping Nichols up would have given away what had happened to her, and Lechmere would have been decidedly uninterested in such a thing, I dare say. And he had taken care of the blood business already, by feeling her hands and face - that would have been enough to provide any explanation of blood on his hands.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"The track record on trying to prove it on this thread has failed woefully.

The track record on trying to persuade others the validity of Cross has fallen likewise.

You make an average case. Your Cornwallian approach does you no favours either. "

Who said anything about needing any favours...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"But, but...the flesh on the table. How's a single (non-absorbent?) blanket going to cover that lot up? "

Ha! You actually DID it ...?

"Not that either, I'm afraid."

Wrong, and this time IŽm the one being afraid.

"Moreover, if Cross could hear Paul all the way from Brady Street, it makes even less sense for the former to stay rooted to the spot when he had the chance to put considerable between him and the crime scene before Paul arrived."

You are working from the premise that he would have fled, given the chance. I am working from the assumption that he was clever enough to use Paul as a ticket out. Running and leaving a body behind had itŽs built-in risks, you know. We will reach different conclusions, thus.

"Different footwear more likely."

Converse All-Stars, I take it...?

"what was Paul going to do, realistically, at the sight of another man disappearing in the distance?"

Take a look at what the man had fled from and alert the police. Why risk that if you did not have to? Even if Mizen, for example, had been passed before he knew of the murder, he would potentially be able to give a description of the man and subsequentially perhaps even nail him. Reasonably, if Mizen walked that beat on all nights, he could have seen Lechmere before and perhaps known him well by sight. Using Paul meant lots of advantages.

"all of that is completely untrue, as has been pointed out numerous times."

LetŽs just say I donŽt agree with your assessment, Ben. LetŽs just say that we DO know that Lechmere would have passed through the very area where the bodies were found. And letŽs not apply Canter à la Ben to it - Garry has, I believe, pointed you in the correct direction on that score.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

"You think Cross was these things?"

If he was the killer, then undoubtedly yes.

"Well, I know for a fact Le Grand was all these things and have proven it, yet you're always right there to tell me it means nothing and he's a lame suspect."

So sorry, Tom! But lets break things down before IŽm sentenced to hang, okay?

Many people are resourceful and coldblooded. If you think Le Grand was, then I wonŽt contradict you. You know more about him than I do, so IŽll take your word for it. The problem is, like I said, that such a thing would not single Le Grand out as one of very few contenders for the Ripper title.

The same goes for Lechmere - if he was truly resourceful and coldblooded, then that is not any way near enough to suggest him as the Ripper. Working from point zero, we donŽt even know if the Ripper WAS resourceful and coldblooded, although his chosen killing venues seem to point to at least some sang-froid.

We don't know that the Ripper was cold-blooded? Does 'cold-blooded' mean something different in Sweden? And I would agree that if Cross was the Ripper, then he was resourceful and cold-blooded, but that isn't what you said, is it. You're taking traits of the Ripper and transposing them onto Cross and then using that as evidence. I really hate to do the whole 'my suspect is better than yours' thing, but what I've been discussing on this thread and what I'm more interested in is your thought processes, as opposed to Cross as Ripper. I'm marveling at how you can easily dismiss hard facts where other suspects are concerned, but seem quite content to create and accept any measure of conjecture where Cross is concerned. It makes me curious as to why Cross has become so special to you.

You tell Monty that Cross is a good suspect because he's resourceful and cold-blooded. When I reply that so was Le Grand, you then say, 'well, that means nothing'. You then go on to qualify your Cross argument by saying, 'well, the Ripper was cold-blooded, so Cross must have been.' Remarkably, you then contradict yourself by saying we don't even know that the Ripper was cold-blooded.

I personally don't have a problem with a sincere researching, such as Lechmere the poster, looking deeper into characters such as Cross. In fact, I applaud it, as I think my exchanges with Lechmere on the subject will show. I won't speak for Monty or anyone else, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that much of the resistance you're receiving isn't because of your stance on Cross, but how you're going about making your stance.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"We don't know that the Ripper was cold-blooded? Does 'cold-blooded' mean something different in Sweden?"

I would not think so - but perhaps Swedes are less inclined to jump to conclusions. We MUST leave space for ALL possibilities, and the Ripper MAY have been a very scared person, suffering from paranoia, for example. Since you are spending some of your post going about how I "transpose" traits to Lechmere, I thought I might just as well point to the fact that you seem to have nothing against transposing uncertain traits to the Ripper yourself ...

" I would agree that if Cross was the Ripper, then he was resourceful and cold-blooded, but that isn't what you said, is it."

On the contrary - that was exactly what I said.

"I'm marveling at how you can easily dismiss hard facts where other suspects are concerned, but seem quite content to create and accept any measure of conjecture where Cross is concerned."

As far as I can tell, I have not dismissed one single hard fact attaching to Le Grand. Could you enlighten me, if you disagree?

"It makes me curious as to why Cross has become so special to you."

Oh, but you already know that: I think he is the best bid for the RipperŽs role, and I think he is so by a fair margin. I would even go so far as to say that he is the only truly practically useful bid, meaning that I regard the other suspects mainly as ideological bids, instead of practical ones. Take Druitt, for example: we donŽt know that he was ever even close to the murder sites, we donŽt know that he was violent, we donŽt know that he had a hang-up on women, etcetera. What we DO know is that he was mentioned at the time as a good suspect for some reason (as were others), plus that he thought he was going nuts himself. Ideologically, that just about fits. Practically, he is a lousy bid.
Le Grand? I could not say. You could, but you wonŽt as yet. Therefore, what I have on the man is that he was cruel to prostitutes, he was a con artist and a man with a penchant for bombs, he extored or tried to extort etcetera. And he probably left a tavern a mile from the place Stride died at an hour that seeminmgly allowed for him to be the killer.
The last part is practically useful, and therefore he is a better bid than Druitt. But to my eyes, he does not compare at all to Lechmere in this respect. But I would welcome anything else you have to add to the list! Judging by a fiormer post, it is only your high demands on proof that stops you from exclaiming him the Ripper, or something like that, so I bet youŽve got something up your sleeve?
I think there is a good deal to learn from what Abberline stated in 1903: Fifteen years down the line, the police was no wiser than they had been in 1888. They did not know how the killer was. All their hopes had smouldered away, one by one, leaving them with nothing and nobody.

"You tell Monty that Cross is a good suspect because he's resourceful and cold-blooded."

No. I tell Monty that many things make him a good bid, and that IF he was the killer, then he was seemingly resourceful and coldblooded. If you read my former posts, you will notice that I clearly state that resourcefullness and coldbloodedness ONLY, with no further evidence, makes for a lame suspect.

" I wouldn't be surprised to learn that much of the resistance you're receiving isn't because of your stance on Cross, but how you're going about making your stance."

Aha. But how does that increase or decrease the possibility that I am right...? IŽm not after any applause and being liked and appreciated and treated to the odd pint - I am after the Ripper. How about you, Tom?

The best
Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

Hi everyone,

As I had made a bold claim to have 'discovered something curious' about the murder of Mary Ann Nichols (albeit on another thread), I feel it's only fair to tell you all, that I have infact contacted 'Ripperologist' magazine and after some discussion with Adam Wood, I am now working on an article based around my original essay, with a view to publication at sometime in the future.

I hope you will forgive me, but untill that time I am going to remain silent on the nature of my 'discovery'.

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

" I am now working on an article based around my original essay, with a view to publication at sometime in the future."

Then I wish you the best of luck with that essay, Mr Lucky!

Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Dear me, Garry - what ARE you talking about? Propping Nichols up would have given away what had happened to her, and Lechmere would have been decidedly uninterested in such a thing, I dare say.

Why would he? Revelation of the disembowelment at that stage isn't going to implicate Cross, is it? He could just say,
"Oh my God, look what's been done to her!"
Surely, as the killer (if he was the killer) he'd delight in the opportunity to relive his pleasure under the guise of an innocent witness?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

If we play by the Macnaghten rules, Cross as Nichols' murderer and, thus, Jack the Ripper looks shaky.

If Jack did one, he had to have done all five, so where is the evidence to suggest Cross murdered any of the others?

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

Hi everyone,

As I had made a bold claim to have 'discovered something curious' about the murder of Mary Ann Nichols (albeit on another thread), I feel it's only fair to tell you all, that I have infact contacted 'Ripperologist' magazine and after some discussion with Adam Wood, I am now working on an article based around my original essay, with a view to publication at sometime in the future.

I hope you will forgive me, but untill that time I am going to remain silent on the nature of my 'discovery'.

Hi Mr Lucky,

I'm intrigued and, having recently subscribed, I look forward to reading your article.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

" Revelation of the disembowelment at that stage isn't going to implicate Cross, is it? He could just say,
"Oh my God, look what's been done to her!"

Absolutely correct, Bridewell! The problem only arises when it comes to their joint possibilities to leave the spot. Arguably, they would have immediately cried for the police, and keeping in mind that Lechmere would - if he was the killer - have the knife stashed on him, it would have been something he did not include in his prayers.
It was only the "uncertainty" about what was amiss with Nichols that allowed for the two to leave her. Morally, it was kind of callous even then - but leaving a nearly decapitated woman? No.

"Surely, as the killer (if he was the killer) he'd delight in the opportunity to relive his pleasure under the guise of an innocent witness?"

Interesting, Bridewell - but I stick with the above.

The best,
Fisherman