Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Ben]

I notice that the pulled-down skirt has been raised again, in more ways than one! This is entirely unsuspicious in relation to Cross. The only reason no attempt at concealment was made with later victims is because their mutilations were too extensive. There was no point pulling down Eddowes’ skirts with her face mutilated and her intestines thrown over the shoulder. Had the mutilations not been so severe, the killer might well have pulled down the skirts, perhaps to give him that extra fleeing time.

Equally unsuspicious is his use of a name he had used before – that of his stepfather. He didn’t just pluck it from the aether, like the genuinely suspicious “Howard Henry Holmes” apparently did. It was an entirely legitimate use of a genuine name that he had uses in the past.

I don’t think anyone’s going to tire of refuting the erroneous claim that several victims were killed en route to work. That is absolutely not the case. If he took the Hanbury Street “route” on a regular basis (and we have no reason to believe her ever took any other), he would have passed Chapman’s murder scene only. Miller’s Court would not have been far away, but it certainly wasn’t “en route”. In any case, Cross is a poor suspect for both these murders and he would have been due at work, in all overwhelming probability, before these women were murdered.

If people don’t believe Stride was a ripper victim, it is waste of their own time to argue that Cross is a compelling suspect in the Stride murder and thus a compelling ripper candidate. That makes no sense whatsoever, as several contributors here have observed. Not that a mother living in Cable Street is a particularly compelling connection to Stride in any case. Other, far more “compelling” suspects actually lived a stone’s throw away from more than one murder scene.

People are simply misrepresenting and exaggerating the “case” against Cross and then asking people to show them a suspect who comes close. It’s little wonder that the idea seems to be going down rather badly.

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, and thus certainly no reason to think that Cross was stationary at the murder site from Paul’s right turn into Buck’s Row. In addition, unless Paul himself had decidedly clippy-cloppy boots, there is nothing remotely “strange” about Cross first detecting his presence a few yards away. 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 fled the scene immediately, and commenced his escape as the oblivious Paul continued to walk down Buck’s Row. Instead, according to the Cross proponents, he deliberately waits for Paul to arrive on the scene in order to engineer an unnecessary bluff that involves approaching a policeman with his murder weapon still secreted about his person. It just isn’t plausible.

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

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Monty:

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

I know, Monty!

"Resourceful, cold blooded and enjoys playing games. That's pretty insightful."

No. Itīs simple recognition of what went down. And I will show you why!

"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.

"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.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Monty:

"You seem to be under the illusion that all Serial Killers function beyond the realms of all reason Fish."

I would say that I have fought a battle to prove the exact opposite, Monty – I am the one, remember, that warns people not to look for the Ripper in the loonie-bin.
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.

"Your sacarasm only highlights the fact you have no reasonable arguement against the impausibility of this key series of events regarding Cross's alledged involvement in Nichols murder."

My sarcasm as such was brought on by having the Lechmere bid called silly and beyond reason. Maybe I should have pulled my punches somewhat, given that you are obviously not factoring in the things I factor in myself. Therefore, you will not reach the same conclusions. And therefore, also, your stance is a more reasonable one (though not wholly) - for now. But as I have said before, Monty: Have some faith ...!

All the best,
Fisherman

I didn't realise you knew Cross so well. Resourceful, cold blooded and enjoys playing games. That's pretty insightful.

No, 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.

I do not rely on faith, just the facts.

Monty

[Monty]

Methinks?

Oh if only I have the time.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"You seem to be under the illusion that all Serial Killers function beyond the realms of all reason Fish."

I would say that I have fought a battle to prove the exact opposite, Monty – I am the one, remember, that warns people not to look for the Ripper in the loonie-bin.
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.

"Your sacarasm only highlights the fact you have no reasonable arguement against the impausibility of this key series of events regarding Cross's alledged involvement in Nichols murder."

My sarcasm as such was brought on by having the Lechmere bid called silly and beyond reason. Maybe I should have pulled my punches somewhat, given that you are obviously not factoring in the things I factor in myself. Therefore, you will not reach the same conclusions. And therefore, also, your stance is a more reasonable one (though not wholly) - for now. But as I have said before, Monty: Have some faith ...!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Monty:

"Beyond reason."

Yes, considering how reasonable chaps serial killers are, some of them mentally sick, some of them psychopaths, you may have a point there, Monty...

The best,
Fisherman

You seem to be under the illusion that all Serial Killers function beyond the realms of all reason Fish.

Its an error you need to rectify.

Your sacarasm only highlights the fact you have no reasonable arguement against the impausibility of this key series of events regarding Cross's alledged involvement in Nichols murder.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Beyond reason."

Yes, considering how reasonable chaps serial killers are, some of them mentally sick, some of them psychopaths, you may have a point there, Monty...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hunter:

"He just nearly cut a woman's head off, slashes up her abdomen... and then goes up to Paul and puts his hand on his shoulder.

I believed I'd, at least, keep my hands in my pockets after doing all of that in very low light."

... since you would not know if they were very bloodied? Weīve been over that before - he could have dried his hands on Nicholsīclothes if he felt the need to, he could have worn gloves, he may not have bloodied his hands at all. Moreover, if he - perhaps - held Nichols by the hair with his left hand as he cut her throat with his right hand, then why would the left hand get any blood on it? Same thing with the abdomen - the hand that held the knife was the one that risked getting bloodied. And he had two hands, Hunter, meaning that he may have actively chosen to use his left hand to stop Paul IF he felt that his right hand had blood on it. Which it did NOT necessarily need to have.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"If Cross was so intimidating,all he had to do was say to Paul,'It's only a drunk sleeping it off",and then lead Paul away."

Yes. IF he was absolutely certain that Paul had not seen what was going on, that is. If not - another story. In such a case heīd need to find out what Paul knew.

There is also the possibility that Lechmere actually enjoyed putting the whole show on, letīs not forget that.

Finally, it seems everybody thinks that Paul would have represented a great disadvantage to Lechmere, but this was not so - Robert Paul was about the best thing that could have happened to Lechmere, if he was the killer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Exactly Hunter,

Kills a woman, seconds later drawns someones attention to it. This after noting their approach.

Beyond reason.

Monty

[Hunter]

He just nearly cut a woman's head off, slashes up her abdomen... and then goes up to Paul and puts his hand on his shoulder.

I believed I'd, at least, keep my hands in my pockets after doing all of that in very low light.

[harry]

If Cross was so intimidating,all he had to do was say to Paul,'It's only a drunk sleeping it off",and then lead Paul away.

[Fisherman]

Hi Jon!

Breaks, yes - but would they not be representing where there were gates, just like the Browns Stable Yard gates?

To me, the school building seems to offer the perhaps best gang robbery opportunity. Post one guy in Buckīs Row, one in Winthrop Street, and tax whatever is coming up the streets, the rest of the gang hiding at the western facade of the school.

But this wonīt get us anywhere, I fear. We will never know for sure what unsettled Paul.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Fisherman

Dunno, Jon - but from what I have seen, the doorways on Essex wharf WERE shallow. I would appreciate if you can point to deeper doorways, situated roughly where Lechmere stood.

I could only muster up the 1899 Goad`s. There appears to be breaks in the buildings along the north side.

[Fisherman]

Tom:

"That's not entirely true and you know it."

Not really. I think it is a pretty fair picture of things.

"We're not brainwashed simpletons, Fish."

Then I never should have said so. Wait a sec; I didnīt ...!

"It's just a matter of there not being any 'evidence of guilt' to hang your hat on. "

On which suspect would that kind of hat fit then, Tom? I donīt see anybody complaining about suspects being promoted who have a lot less going for them than Lechmere ...?
Then again, there IS useful evidence in Lechmereīs case, the way I see things. And that comprises information that I have not as yet touched upon, Iīm afraid.

"Cross lived for years following the murders, did he not? What crimes is he known to have committed?"

What crimes were Dennis Rader known to have committed? Donīt step into the same trap as many posters do, Tom. There is no need for a serialist to have a criminal record, and - and that is an important and - how on earth would we know that Lechmere did not commit any crimes before, during and after the Ripper scare? In Raders case, it was not what he was known to have committed that was of interest - it was what he was NOT known to have committed.

" As of yet I haven't seen any reason to suspect Cross any more than Robert Paul"

Iīll leave that uncommented, considering the timeline of the case...

The best,
Fisherman