Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[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

[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.

[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 donīt 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

[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.

[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, youīd be in no position to disprove it. But donīt worry, I wonīt 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

[Garry Wroe]

But we have more on Lechmere, as has been pointed out … We have him refusing to prop a woman, quite possibly in dire need of help, up.

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.

[Fisherman]

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, youīd be in no position to disprove it. But donīt worry, I wonīt prove it - I will only make a very good case for it. And then you can joke about that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Yep, Monty - when you canīt disprove it, make jokes about it instead!

The best,
Fisherman

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

The best
Monty

[Fisherman]

Yep, Monty - when you canīt disprove it, make jokes about it instead!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"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.

What does this mean? It means that if this is all we have on a man, then he makes for a lame suspect as the Ripper.

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. We have him giving the wrong name. We have him refusing to prop a woman, quite possibly in dire need of help, up. We have the pulled-down clothes. We have a free passage for him on the night, without any checking up by the police, meaning that he may have been allowed to carry the murder weapon away with him.

Those are all things that are very much thought-evoking. And once we see the implications, the time has come to see how he checks out with the ensuing murders. 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. Moreover, the murder that deviated from this, actually is played out on a Saturday night en route to his mothers house. Meaning that we may easily couple that murder to Lechmere too.
It is nothing short of miraculous that we can do so, 124 years after the killing spree, but there you are.

So this is what happens when we check out how Lechmere relates to the other murder cases involved - he nails them, one by one. The poor sod was even so unlucky as to have his motherīs/daughterīs home situated the fewest of yards away from and exactly facing the very railway arch in which the Pinchin Street Torso was found - and much as most researchers regard that as unrelated to the Ripper murders, it remains that the torso had had itīs belly ripped open, and I seem to remember that Phillips spoke of at least some cutting that was reminiscent of the Ripperīs work, although he too opted for another killer in the end.

Quite an unlucky guy, would you not say, as lame suspects go?

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Tom,

I've bagged Paul already. Along with Henry Paul, Robbie Paul, Paul Daniels, Pau Begg, Paula Abdul and Mrs Fiddymont.

Its just a feeling I have.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Itīs another thing altogether that I do not think that Lechmere was an ordinary man. I think he was very resourceful and pretty cold-bloodied - and quite possibly somewhat amused by playing games. Thus my remark to you.

You think Cross was these things? 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. Something tells me that if you and not I had been the one to pluck Le Grand from the mothballs, there'd be as many Le Grand threads as Maybrick threads and you'd be telling us what a fact it is that he was the Ripper. Could it be that you just want a suspect to call your own? Of course, you're a little late with Cross. There was a guy, who's name skips me, who was writing up Cross as a suspect in a series of small articles for Ripperana way back in the day. Then another dude wrote a couple for Ripperologist. And before all that, there was yours truly posting that had the murders stopped after Nichols, Cross would have likely been arrested.


I really think you should adopt Robert Paul as your pet suspect. That would be original. Except, of course, you'd have to acknowledge me as your muse.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Monty! You found time - good!

"You know? Spirit guides or are you older than you say?"

Nope; opportunity three: it was obvious. To be fair, Iīve got something up my sleeve that I very much suspect you are unaware of.

"Again, you see cold blooded game playing, I see a man confused, concerned (to a degree) and willing to be led."

Whatīs radical about that view? Well, perhaps the "willing to be led" bit. Why would a man willing to be led take command as they meet the PC (Mizen)? Would it not be to expect that Paul took the lead in such a case?

The interesting thing about the whole Lechmere bid is that there is always this ambiguity built in. Well, almost always at any rate. My hunch (yes!) is that Lechmere took full advantage of that.

"Pure conjecture. "

So is it to put another man - Jack - whom nobody saw in place, Monty. Since nobody saw him, Iīd submit that he is MORE conjecture than a man that we know was there, and who acts in a way that lends itself admirably to an interpreation of guilt. That, at least , is how I see it.

"Youve never met Cross"

True - but only the fewest of us met Kosminski, Kelly and Tumblety, so Iīm none too bothered about that.

"... you havent provided any supporting evidence he was what you state he was"

What I have provided is a number of instances where he acts oddly (like the propping up business, for example). Plus, what evidence is there for Kosminski, for Kelly, for Tumblety?
And - like I said - there is more to come.

"As ever, it all hinges on the 'if' word."

And so it will AFTER I have presented my whole case. I wonīt present a watertight case, believe it or not. But it will make for a compelling case just the same!

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Monty:

"I didn't realise you knew Cross so well."

I know, Monty!

You know? Spirit guides or are you older than you say?

"I factor in the reported facts. Fact is Cross approached Paul and called him to see Nichols, he drew attention to the whole scene and for no valid reason. He ran a massive risk which goes beyond reason and logic."

Ah, but you are wrong here, methinks! There was a VERY valid reason for approaching Paul - you see, Paul was part of his ticket out from Buckīs Row. He realized that tagging along with Paul would give him a sort of alibi. He knew that the police, on finding Nichols, would probably go looking for a human monster, a madman with a taste for cutting people up in the open street. What they would NOT go looking for was - for example - two carmen walking to job together. They had a reason for being in the streets, and their being in company made it very improbable that they were a pair of eviscerators.
Thus, Monty, there was a good and valid reason for Lechmere to appreciate Pauls company on that cold August morning! And THATīS why I call him resourceful and coldblooded, and why I think that there is a fair chance that he did not mind playing games.

Methinks?

OK, let me try a radical view on you. He sees tarpaulin, crosses the road to have a look, notes it is a woman and fears for her life, is concerned and confused, notes another man coming along and thinks "I'll see what this chap has to say on the situation" and calls the chap over. He says he thinks she is dead, the other chap disagrees, citing her as a drunk. Not wanting to seem like he is over reacting he goes along with this other chap however they agree to tell the next PC who comes along, a compromise.

Again, you see cold blooded game playing, I see a man confused, concerned (to a degree) and willing to be led. There is nothing in his actions which support your assesment. There is in those actions and subsequent ones with regards my assessement.

"He ran a massive risk which goes beyond reason and logic."

To begin with, Monty, whoever it was that put a knife to Nicholsī belly, he sure as hell took a huge risk, right? There is no way we can look at the Ripper murders and find a solution where the killer did not risk his neck. The rewards of killing were great enough for him to do what he did, risks or no risks.

But we are talking Lechmere here, and the risks HE took, if he was the killer! And those risks, Monty, were greatly diminished - not increased! - by joining forces with Paul. A lone man, running like a rabbit, would risk far, far more than a carman in company with another carman, both being on the streets for valid reasons, walking casually together, and both giving their companion a sort of alibi.

Pure conjecture. There is nothing to support the above quoted passage. All we have is your opinion. No evidence of subsequent actions supporting such an idea.

Youve never met Cross, you havent provided any supporting evidence he was what you state he was, yet you are claiming this is indeed the course of events and that Cross was the killer.


As ever, it all hinges on the 'if' word.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"The only reason no attempt at concealment was made with later victims is because their mutilations were too extensive."

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

No, Ben, I think you are simply wrong on this. It was a deflecting manouvre, by the looks of things.

"There is absolutely no guarantee that Paul would have heard Cross’ footsteps from the entrance to Brady Street had the latter been on the move"

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

"unless Paul himself had decidedly clippy-cloppy boots, there is nothing remotely “strange” about Cross first detecting his presence a few yards away."

Well, considering that Neil heard his colleague more than a hundred yards away, Iīd say there is something decidedly strange about it. Different mileage, perhaps ...?

"If Cross really could detect Paul all the way from the Brady Street eastern entrance, there was even less reason to remain at the body and await the latter’s arrival. He could have departed from the scene immediately, and commenced his escape as the oblivious Paul continued to walk down Buck’s Row."

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

"I’d much rather see all this research and unpublished material that people keep threatening to produce, than continued repetition of the current arguments than very few people are finding convincing."

Then congratulate yourself on getting to do so in days to come. Up til then, I reserve myself the right to counter whatever arguments I choose to.

The best,
Fisherman