Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[mariab]

Hi Maria. I think we have a Le Grand/Joseph Aarons connection by way of Aarons having employed the Grand one.

Sure we do. And don't forget I'm hoping to look at their respective financial situation (through potential banking records), partly thanks to the LMA, partly thank to Debs.

Proving Le Grand knew Birch would by no means prove Le Grand was the Ripper. It would just mean he was likely involved in a FOURTH (or is it fifth?) Ripper case hoax.

Now who's being a minimalist?
I thought third hoax. Fourth if you count MJK. Fifth? Can you possibly have something on Smith/Tabram?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Maria. I think we have a Le Grand/Joseph Aarons connection by way of Aarons having employed the Grand one. Proving Le Grand knew Birch would by no means prove Le Grand was the Ripper. It would just mean he was likely involved in a FOURTH (or is it fifth?) Ripper case hoax.

Hi Ben. Completely agreed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

If a link between him and Le Grand is ever found, it's case solved!

Or I was thinking, a link to Birch. Or even to Aarons.

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

However, the difference is that Hutch provided evidence that was questionable, had a prior relationship with the victim, was by his own admission loitering near the murder scene on the day of the crime, and came to be seen as unreliable by the police. If a link between him and Le Grand is ever found, it's case solved!

I think we're there already with Broad-shoulders and Pipeman! A short, stout man whose broad shoulders betrayed a military appearance, with Le Grand the obvious candidate for the older, taller man. A done deal, I think.

Seriously though, I agree with everything you say above. Le Grand and Hutchinson are legitimately suspicious. The problem with Cross is that while having the means and opportunity are all well and good (although I'd really dispute he even had the latter), there is just nothing about him or his actions that can reasonably be construed as suspicious.

All the best,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Ben. I started looking at Le Grand about 7 years after I started researching the case. I've never swayed from my belief that all of the canonical 5 were killed by the same man, although my opinion on Tabram has swayed like the wind over the years and continues to do so. In my case, fitting Le Grand in made sense of most of the little nagging mysteries, and did indeed open up possibilities that were not so apparent before.

In fact, I guess it makes sense that you, as Hutchinson's biggest supporter as Ripper, should be challenging Fish with Cross, as both 'suspects' were first introduced to the case as witnesses. However, the difference is that Hutch provided evidence that was questionable, had a prior relationship with the victim, was by his own admission loitering near the murder scene on the day of the crime, and came to be seen as unreliable by the police. If a link between him and Le Grand is ever found, it's case solved! But none of this is true in the case of Cross. It's for this reason I think it's crucial if Cross is going to be argued for that his researchers find SOMETHING we can sink our teeth into, preferably evidence of violence prior to or after the murder. SOMETHING. Otherwise, we might as well argue that John McCarthy was the Ripper because he sent someone to discover the body, conveniently staying behind, and then wouldn't admit to having a key to the room. Suspicious!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

If I have misunderstood you, then I apologize.

No worries, Tom, it's quite possible that I'm still misunderstanding Fisherman!

In all cases, the assessment of evidence must come before any suspect selection. As such, the ripper-authorship (or otherwise) of the Goulston Street graffiti must be made on the basis of the evidence alone before any suspects are looked into. If people are excluding this, or the Stride murder, or anything else on the grounds that their favourite suspect can't have been responsible, I'd suggest that's the wrong way to go about it, simply because their conclusions are being swayed by extraneous considerations to the actual evidence. I'm sure this doesn't describe you or I (others will dispute that; in my case, at least!), and I hope it doesn't describe Fisherman, but I'm a bit concerned by some of the misplaced tenacity in arguing so staunchly and suddenly in favour of Cross.

All the best,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

But 4. doesn't have anything to do with crime scene evidence. As such, it should not have any bearing at all on whether or not you consider Stride a ripper victim. The latter determination should have been made on the basis of evidence from the crime scene - evidence that cannot possibly be changed by the "discovery" of a recently latched-onto "suspect". The same applies to the Pinchin Street. If you formerly in the habit of accepting that crime scene evidence rules that one out as a ripper crime, Cross shouldn't make any difference.

I'm very surprised that you still haven't grasped this.

Hi Ben. I might have to take issue with that. Let's say you're favoring a suspect who was illiterate, or maybe didn't know English. Out of necessity, you would exclude the Goulston Street graffiti from the evidence list. But if you found proof this man was not the Ripper, and switched to a suspect who could have written the graffiti, you would be more open to considering it. So, the evidence hasn't changed, but the insertion of that suspect has created new avenues of potential inquiry. If this is what Fish was getting at, then I'd have to agree with him. I've been there myself. If I have misunderstood you, then I apologize.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

... which is why I think that opportunity was not there.

That would only apply if Cross was taken completely by surprise, but for some mysterious reason, you're arguing the reverse. You're arguing that Cross registered Paul's presence the moment the latter turned right out of Brady Street, and still thought there was "no opportunity" to "leave the scene undetected". I cannot, for the life of me, fathom that one out. It is quite beyond question that Cross could have escaped undetected before Paul had made any distance into Buck's Row, let alone the hundred or so yards that stretched out between Buck Row's eastern entrance and the crime scene. In fact, the chances of him doing so very easily were vastly greater than average.

What I said was that Paul would take a look at what the man fled from, did I not?

Okay, but from what vantage point exactly? It is quite clear that both Cross and Paul did not register the body until they were relatively close to it. Cross didn't have to make it remotely obvious that he was "fleeing" from anything. Remember that in your scenario, a distant gas lamp would have alerted Cross that a man had just turned onto the street. In which case, he had only to walk at an inconspicuous brisk pace in the opposite direction and so commence an "escape" that would have been well under way by the time Paul arrived at the crime scene, made tentative investigations, and went in search of a policeman.

I also said that even if Lechmere had had the time to pass for example Mizen before the hunt was on, had he chosen Hanbury Street, then Mizen would be able to say that yes, there was this carman that ran past me, etcetera.

Indeed. All the less reason to commit another murder along the same route a mere week later, where he could have been recognised not only as "this carman that ran past me", but "this carman that discovered the previous murder victim and received heavy exposure as a police and inquest witness". Not a problem, of course, for the real killer, who probably took a different escape route altogether (Old Montague Street?), thus explaining Mizen's failure to encounter him in mid-escape.

"But that does not in any way detract from the fact that there is every reason to suggest that he normally DID move along streets that took him past the murder places at the approximate hours that the Ripper victims were killed."

General murder region where thousands of others actually lived, yes. Appoximate hours that the ripper victims were killed? No. As I've pointed out before, the likely time of Chapman's murder would tend to rule out anyone employed as a carman for the simple reason that most, if not all of them, would have been due at work considerably earlier. The Kelly murder is equally problematic in this respect.

3. The practical outcome of all this is that if I had been asked if I would have voted for the A/ Ripper or B/ Somebody else as the more probable killer of Stride, I would have voted B.
4. After that, I have come to believe that Charles Lechmere is the best bid we have for the Ripper

But 4. doesn't have anything to do with crime scene evidence. As such, it should not have any bearing at all on whether or not you consider Stride a ripper victim. The latter determination should have been made on the basis of evidence from the crime scene - evidence that cannot possibly be changed by the "discovery" of a recently latched-onto "suspect". The same applies to the Pinchin Street torso. If you were formerly in the habit of accepting that crime scene evidence rules that one out as a ripper crime, Cross shouldn't make any difference.

I'm very surprised that you still haven't grasped this.

All I can say is that she died 30 yards from Old Montague Road/Wentworth Street, and at a time that puts gher into the Lechmere frame.

No. Still no. There is still no evidence that Cross had anything to do with Old Montague Street/Wentworth Street. There are other suspects who actually lived in Wentworth street, and literally a stone's throw from George Yard. That seems much more "in the frame" to me. Joseph Fleming was one of them, since you mention him, and no, it is very unlikely that he was 6'7". Debs' suggestion, that the entry meant to read 67 inches (thus 5'7"), is far more plausible.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

TomW:

" I'm glad you're willing to change your mind on things, even long held beliefs."

Not that I want to disappoint you, Tom, but I have not changed any belief as such. I have come to think that option B may apply, that´s all.

"with the both of us chasing a couple of Charles L's around Whitechapel, we were bound to butt heads I suppose."

Think we can sort that out just fine, Tom.

"When it comes to weighing the evidence with a suspect in the frame, one test that I believe determines the validity of that suspect is - how much evidence does one need to EXCLUDE in order to make them fit? How does Cross equal out in that measure? "

Good question. I´ll have to give that some thougth before answering it!

" I seem to recall you publishing an article some time back regarding theory that Joseph Fleming murdered Tabram. Do you still believe that or do you see Cross' hand in that now?"

All I can say is that she died 30 yards from Old Montague Road/Wentworth Street, and at a time that puts gher into the Lechmere frame.

I am much more pessimistic about Fleming nowadays, since it surfaced that he was 6,7 not least. Also, I know now where in the George Yard buildings Tabram died - and it does not tally with my earlier estimation, making the scavenger scenario less useful.

The best, Tom - I´ll get back to you with an answer on the evidence bit on Lechmere!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"Of course, this should be "I would not call Cross 'eager to help a woman in distress'""

I actually had that counted out all on my own, Frank!

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fish. Well, I'm glad you're willing to change your mind on things, even long held beliefs. That kind of flexibility is important, particularly when placing a suspect into the frame and see what happens. I don't want to give you too much grief, though with the both of us chasing a couple of Charles L's around Whitechapel, we were bound to butt heads I suppose.

When it comes to weighing the evidence with a suspect in the frame, one test that I believe determines the validity of that suspect is - how much evidence does one need to EXCLUDE in order to make them fit? How does Cross equal out in that measure?

Also, I seem to recall you publishing an article some time back regarding theory that Joseph Fleming murdered Tabram. Do you still believe that or do you see Cross' hand in that now?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"Quite, and - my point - that he wasn’t as resourceful or cold-bloodied as you first suggested."

I´m not sure that I understand your argument here, Frank. I am saying that he would have realized that throwing away the knife would have not been an option, due to the sound it would have made.

"If, as you also - rightfully - suggest, he heard Paul entering Buck’s Row from Brady Street (ca. 120 meters/130 yards), then he would at the very least have 1 minute to get rid of the knife. If it took Cross some 10 seconds to come up with the idea to wait for Paul as his ticket out of there, he could still have thrown it over the stable doors without much chance of Paul 1. hearing a CLANG! behind a some stable doors and 2. when he met up with Cross figured it was the knife thrown away by Cross. Furthermore, tossing it over the doors was just one option, he would have had enough time to silently lay it down anywhere not too far from the body. Hell, he even had enough time to get round the board school and altogether get out of there before Paul ever reached the spot where Nichols lay."

... which is why we must factor in that he perhaps did not notice Paul all the way from the Brady Street crossing. We cannot know at what stage he DID notice him, but I would say that even if Paul was a hundred yards away, he would have heard the distinct sound of a metal object landing on stone. And maybe Lechmere did not WANT to throw away the knife at all - maybe he liked it very much, and wanted to keep it if possible. He may never even have contemplated a situation in which he threw the knife away.

"Another thing is that, if he was her killer, he didn’t wipe his hands on Nichols clothes: there was no blood – so, no smears either - on any part of her clothes except the back, on which she lay. "

But that does not mean that he did not wipe his hands on her clothes, Frank. In the darkness, he would not have known if he had any blood on him. He may have wiped them on her ulster anyway, precautionary, and if his hands were not bloodied, there would not have been any blood set off.

"If Paul would have come from the other side (where the board school was), then I think you may have a point, but from Neil’s testimony we know that it was possible to hear someone at the Brady Street end of Buck’s Row and I highly doubt that Cross the murderer would not have heard Paul until he was too close to flee."


... unless, of course, the killing and cutting had all his focus until it was too late to flee - he may well have been in a sort of bubble when cutting away, oblivious of things to some degree and not noticing Paul until the latter had come some way down the street.

" He doesn’t particularly come across as eager to help her. And understandably so, since she appeared to be dead and he himself being late. "

Dead or drunk, was what Lechmere thought, by his own admission. He would have realized - if he was innocent - that she could have had some sort of heart attack or anything like that too. And Paul told him that he thought sdhe stirred when he examined her. That would have been quite enough to call for something else than leaving her lying with no help at all.

"I don't know if anybody corrected you on this, Fish, but I'm not so sure about Lechmere serving them anything. First of all, Swanson wrote his reports in a sort of telegraph style, of which this is an example. Secondly, in a report by Abberline dated 19 September 1888, he wrote..."

No correction needed since I am right - Swanson DID write that the two carmen had found Nichols, and telegraph style or not, it is emphatically wrong. Now, Frank, I do not for a second believe that Swanson did not have access to the correct information, nor do I believe as such that Swanson thought the two carmen arrived in company in Buck´s Row, finding Nichols. But I DO think that Swanson uncritically accepted Lechmere´s version of events, and thus thought the time space inbetween the arrivals of the carmen was so small as to be of no interest. And that was bad policing, the way I see things.

All the best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

Good one, Stephen!

[FrankO]

First of all, I would call Cross ‘eager to help a woman in distress’.

Of course, this should be "I would not call Cross 'eager to help a woman in distress'"

[Stephen Thomas]

7Going on the old 1894 ordinance map combined with Google Earth, Fish, I find the difference is about 100 meters in favour of Old Montague Street

He must have preferred the scenic route.