Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Cross cannot be placed immediately prior to or in contact with any victim at time of death".

Lechmere CAN be placed in the immediate vicinity of where Nichols died. He did not materialize there after her death, Harry.He was in close proximity to Nichols when she was cut and when she lay dead there. The timing schedule allows for no other interpretation.

"He says he was on his way to work,and came upon her body lying there.There is no information that contradicts his statement."

... just as there is no information gainsaying that he could have lied and been her killer. And just as there is nothing at all that in any way PROVES that he was just a working man en route to job.

It´s funny, by the way, how people cannot accept that "working men en route to job" can ALSO be killers. Are we still looking for madmen only? Were people who did not end up in a police protocol automatically not guilty?
Try and look away from the societal status Lechmere upheld. It gets in the way repeatedly, and is far too often presented as some sort of guarantee that he could not have done it. It is no such thing.

"Any criteria such as where his mother lived,how his childs death affected him,which roads he traversed is incidental."

Any? No matter how it looks? Who made THAT call...? Of course it is of the utmost interest that Lechmere seemingly could not go to job and visit his mother without having the streets he traversed strewn with victims. How anybody could claim that this is something that is mere coincidence is beyond me. To claim that it COULD be coincidental is just fine - to say that it must be is not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Any criteria such as where his mother lived,how his childs death affected him,which roads he traversed is incidental.It does not show they caused him to cut and mutilate Nicholls.

.. And is purely speculative to boot.

Fisherman -

I see that the Cross thing is still ongoing and that it's in exactly the same place as it was a month ago. I'm not sure that bodes well for your man if you fancy him as the Ripper.

Well. Getting back to first principles, either you have evidence to incriminate Cross or you don't.

As you say you will write something for Ripperologist one can only hope your position is the former; else I doubt that you'll get much credence for your view - simply because your unsupported opinion is insufficient to create or prove a case - as would any opinion be.

I should think Charles Lechmere will get the place he merits as a suspect - as have others.

Good Luck with your article.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Good Luck with your article."

Luck?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally:

"Good Luck with your article."

Luck?

The best,
Fisherman

Er - yes, Fisherman, luck. It's the traditional thing to wish a person embarking on any endeavour.

Of course, you may feel that you don't require luck, if you have a watertight case against Cross already.

[Fisherman]

No, Sally, I was just amazed that you should wish me luck. More often than not, you are very disparaging about Lechmere and his candidacy, so I was simply taken by surprise.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

In post 239, I wrote that Pickford´s would have dealt in tea, which is of course only marginally useful. Pickford´s was a moving company, offering transport of commodities (tea included, I guess), and nothing else.

Sorry about that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

No, Sally, I was just amazed that you should wish me luck. More often than not, you are very disparaging about Lechmere and his candidacy, so I was simply taken by surprise.

The best,
Fisherman

Not at all, Fisherman. If you have new evidence I'll be delighted to see it. I have consistently maintained as much; and that is my view. It would be the same whomever was presenting new evidence.

If I've been 'disparaging' Fisherman, it's because there has so far been no evidence to support Cross's candidacy - only general circumstance and speculation; and a distinct propensity (in general) to dimiss any counterindications as of no relevance.

But since you will shortly address those issues with your forthcoming article, we can leave such quibbles behind, can't we?

So, there we are. Good Luck, once again.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fisherman,

You say the police came up with 'all the wrong suspects', though there's no basis for that. We don't know all their suspects, nor do we know they're all innocent.

And you're completely changing my words. I said 'subsequent criminal career', meaning stuff WE can find out but that hadn't happened yet as of 1888. It's the one advantage we have over the contemporary police and can be quite telling. As you say, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but when you're picking a guy out at random and calling him a murderer, you should start with some kind of evidence, don't you think?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

SAlly.

" If you have new evidence I'll be delighted to see it. I have consistently maintained as much; and that is my view. It would be the same whomever was presenting new evidence."

Indeed - why wouldn´t it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom:

"You say the police came up with 'all the wrong suspects', though there's no basis for that. We don't know all their suspects, nor do we know they're all innocent."

That´s very true. But we DO know that Abberline said in 1903 that the police were exactly as close to solving the case then as they had been 15 years earlier. Meaning that they had no clue at either stage. It sounds harsh to say, but I genuinely believe that this was completely true.

"And you're completely changing my words. I said 'subsequent criminal career', meaning stuff WE can find out but that hadn't happened yet as of 1888."

Ah! Then I was not changing your words, I was simply misunderstanding the question. Sorry about that. And to answer it - no, we have no proof at all of any crimes perpetrated by Lechmere, not before and not after the Ripper killings. Then again, I don´t think that Ridgway had been in problems with the police before the Green River killings, and the same goes for Rader, who is even more interesting in this respect: no record before, and no record after the killing spree.

"As you say, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"

Did I say that? Sounds much too clever to have been me! But if it WAS me, then I´d say I´ve got a darn good point there.

"But when you're picking a guy out at random and calling him a murderer, you should start with some kind of evidence, don't you think? "

I completely agree. Then again, I did not pick Lechmere out at random at all, did I? He is one of the very few people who we can name and of whom we know that they spent time with a victim all alone, at the very point of time when that victim would have died. The only real comparison would perhaps be our old friend Diemschitz, actually - but fear not, I have no intention of changing lanes here ...

You will soon enough find out why I fancy Lechmere the way I do. And I will use existing evidence to make it clear, although I won´t (surprise) be able to prove conclusively that he did it. To convict Lechmere, all of the many elements involved need to weighed in. It is the collected picture that does the damage. You may be very unimpressed by my effort, or you may think I´ve got something, and I look forward to your verdict since I value your judgement. You have a refreshing habit of saying what you think whoever is the author, and I appreciate that very much. But enough flattering for now! I may need to change my mind afterwards and claim that you´re biased towards me, who knows?

Think about it, Tom; the things we know in retrospect that Abberline et al did not know. Imagine the good inspector being briefed by his sergeant in 1889 about the correlation between Lechmere´s route to work and his road to his mother´s house and SIX of the most notorious murders ever to have been perpetrated.
What do you think Abberline would have done? Waved his hand in dismay, calling it "a piss in the wind"?

And if the sergeant was to add: "And not only that, gov - it seem´s the bastard fed us a false name too!

... then what would Abberline have thought? "Probably six unlucky coincidences and a misunderstanding? Or?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fish. Your posts are way too long dude. You're funny in that your posts are always way long, but when you publish an essay it's always short. And I'm not sure I'd say that Cross 'spent time' with a victim. Both parties have to be living to do that. The Ripper 'spent time' with Nichols, but you're jumping the gun in attributing that to Cross. Anyway, I look forward to your article and will read it with an open mind.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"I'm not sure I'd say that Cross 'spent time' with a victim. Both parties have to be living to do that."

No, Tom. That´s when they spend time TOGETHER, and I never said that (although I do believe it happened). I said that Lechmere spent time with Nichols. You can spend time with a dead canary bird, actually. All it takes is you and... well, a dead canary bird. In fact, you can even spend time with your homework, a new computer game or a gnawing suspicion. I´ve spent some time with the gnawing suspicion that Lechmere was the Ripper, so I know!

Moreover ... nah; let´s cut it short!

The best,
Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

Charles Cross Murdered Mary Ann Nichols

Hello everybody

I have a solution to the Bucks row mystery.

I believe my theory is the best possible explanation of the contempary source materials.

Charles Cross murdered Mary Ann Nichols.

I hope to discuss this theory with you in the near future but I will have to remain silent on its nature for now.

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

"Hello everybody

I have a solution to the Bucks row mystery.
I believe my theory is the best possible explanation of the contempary source materials.
Charles Cross murdered Mary Ann Nichols.
I hope to discuss this theory with you in the near future but I will have to remain silent on its nature for now."

Welcome to the club, Mr Lucky! And yes, Lechmere did kill Nichols, in all probability, the way I see things too. I´m very curious as to whether we are looking at the same thing, but just like you say, that will have to remain undisclosed for now.

You mentioned earlier that you had a dissertation coming up in Ripperologist, but that there was another Lechmere dissertation in the upcoming issue, meaning that you had to wait. That dissertation, as far as I understand, is mine. And that´s interesting, since I fail to see why Ripperologist would present two dissertations, pointing to the same thing.

So in all probability, we are not holding on to the same end of the stick after all! But we are apparently placing the noose around the same neck ...

I´m intrigued!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

… you prefer to suggest that I am intentionally leading the readers astray in an effort to exclude important evidence.

I’m suggesting that you’ve changed your stance concerning Stride not on an evidential basis, Fish, but rather in the belief that Stride as a Ripper victim adds weight to your contention of Cross the killer.

You are furthermore saying that nobody should be surprised if I did just that, after my "remarkable volte-face with regard to the Berner Street murder". But there was never any such thing - I have very recently told you that I do not read any of the evidence connected to the Stride murder in any way differently then I have done before.

Then I would suggest that you revisit some of your previous contributions to the Stride threads. They make for interesting reading in the light of your recent epiphany.

The last time over I dealt with this issue I mentioned the word Kindergarten. That still stands. Now I suggest that you refrain from accusations like the one you just made yourself guilty of, and instead discuss the matter in a less inflamed and more sober manner.

Should I require advice on how to conduct myself on the boards, Fish, I’ll be sure to seek it from someone who hasn’t been banned twice in the last two years.