Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Tom_Wescott]

You're welcome, Ripperology: The new book by Tom Wescott

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

I can't help being popular. It just comes with being me. But yes, I am after the Ripper. There's fewer of us than there used to be.

As for Le Grand, he's the only police suspect I can think of who showed up at murder sites right after the fact and coerced people to lie, even fabricating suspects. That's not proof of guilt, but I feel that fact alone places him way, way, way at the top of the heap. A crappy heap, I grant you, but still, my boy sits on top.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

All the very best to you as well.

Based on your surmises, ingenious as they are, methinks you've got an uphill task in trying to put a rope around Cross's neck.

But be of stout heart. Hands down, your theory sure beats Druitt, Kosminski and Tumblety.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Garry:

" in any case Paul suggested that they ‘shift’ the woman. "

It is recorded in the inquest files that a "prop" was what was suggested. Have a look and youīll see.

"how would moving the body in almost total darkness have ‘given away what had happened to her’?"

Her head was haning on by the spine only, so it would have dropped backwards on trying to lift her. Also, they would have suffered the same fate as Thain did, lifting her onto the ambulance: they would have gotten wet blood all over their hands. So itīs quite easy and straightforward, really.

"It was Paul who touched the hands and face. Cross felt one of the hands only."

It would have been enough for him to say that they had both handled the body. I donīt think that Paulīs first thought was to record every move Lechmere made. He would have been occupied with his own efforts.
But that said, you may wish to read the inquest files again, where it says:
" They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm."
... meaning, of course, that Lechmere touched both of her hands AND her face, just like I said.

" Why would Cross have been reluctant to touch Nichols when doing so would have been a cunning and convenient means of covering his involvement in the murder?"

Read the above, and you will understand.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Simon:

"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?"

The best we can do is the fact that the others were killed on or close to Lechmereīs route to work, or on the road leading to his motherīs house - and all of them were killed on times that roughly agrees with when Lechmere would/could have been there.

1.Nichols: directly on his work route.
2. Chapman: Five yards or so from his work route.
3. Stride: 300 yards from his motherīs house and quite possibly directly on his route from Cable Street to Doveton Street.
4. Kelly: 200 yards from Hanbury Street, his work route - if he did not find her at the interception Wentworth Street/Leman Street. She was known to work the latter street, and thus they may actually have met on Wentworth Street, which would have been Lechmereīs alternative route to Pickfordīs, actually being somewhat quicker than Hanbury Street.
5. The Pinchin street torso was found about 30 meters from his motherīs house, in September 1889.
6. Martha Tabram was killed in George Yard buildings, some 30 meters away from Wentworth/Old Montague Street.

Victims 1, 2, 4 and 6 were found early in the morning, agreeing with Lechmereīs going to work, with Chapman as a possible exception, being found later.
Victim 3 was found on the night between a Saturday and a Sunday, when Lechmere very well could have been visting at his motherīs house.

All the best, Simon!
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Dear me, Garry - what ARE you talking about?

Oh, I think you know, Fish.

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 you know this how? But in any case Paul suggested that they ‘shift’ the woman. No talk of propping her up. As for the movement of the body betraying the injuries that had been inflicted upon it, the cut throat was only discovered when PC Neil illuminated the scene with his lamp, and the abdominal mutilations went unrecognized until the body was stripped at the mortuary. So how would moving the body in almost total darkness have ‘given away what had happened to her’?

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.

It was Paul who touched the hands and face. Cross felt one of the hands only. And since there was little or no blood on Nichols’ hands, Cross would clearly have had some explaining to do had a significant quantity of blood been discovered on his hands and clothing.

So, to my original question, Fish. Why would Cross have been reluctant to touch Nichols when doing so would have been a cunning and convenient means of covering his involvement in the murder?

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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]

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 Ripperīs 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 donīt know that he was ever even close to the murder sites, we donīt know that he was violent, we donīt 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 wonīt 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 youīve 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...? Iīm 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

[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 Iīm sentenced to hang, okay?

Many people are resourceful and coldblooded. If you think Le Grand was, then I wonīt contradict you. You know more about him than I do, so Iīll 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 donīt 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]

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 Iīm 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 itīs 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."

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

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