Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Tom_Wescott]

all I will say is the explanation is truly bizarre and improbable

Don't oversell yourself, Lucky.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

"I have of course been following your postings on the Lechmere threads with great interest, and you have raised some very interesting points, but I have an advantage over you here, as you know little about me. I think we are on very different paths, even though we are chasing the same suspect. I am also deeply intrigued by nature of you research, I had no idea it was you that had the article coming up, I noticed you mentioned you were writting an dissertation and I thought ' you'll have to join the queue ', didn't know you were in there first!

My research has moved on considerably in the last few weeks and I now believe I can explain the whole mystery, all I will say is the explanation is truly bizarre and improbable but it fits!

Can't wait to discuss it with you..."

Canīt wait to discuss with you either - but we shall have to wait all the same, I believe. For the record, I donīt know whether there is a THIRD party who is writing for Ripperologist on Lechmere, but I would not think so.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Since it has earlier been discussed on this thread wheter PC Thain had to walk over the cobblestone street in order to pass the Brady Street/Buckīs Row intersection, I can no provide the answer to that question. Itīs from the Evening Standard of the 4:th of September, reporting from the inquest:

"Juryman - How far away from Buck's row was the nearest constable except Neil?
Witness (Inspector Spratling, my remark) - There is another constable whose beat takes in the east side of Brady street, which runs at the top of Buck's row."

So there we are: Thain did NOT walk over the cobblestones as he passed the intersection, since Buckīs Row ended in Brady Street! And Thain walked on the eastern side.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

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 thatīs 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 ...

Iīm intrigued!

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

I have of course been following your postings on the Lechmere threads with great interest, and you have raised some very interesting points, but I have an advantage over you here, as you know little about me. I think we are on very different paths, even though we are chasing the same suspect. I am also deeply intrigued by nature of you research, I had no idea it was you that had the article coming up, I noticed you mentioned you were writting an dissertation and I thought ' you'll have to join the queue ', didn't know you were in there first!

My research has moved on considerably in the last few weeks and I now believe I can explain the whole mystery, all I will say is the explanation is truly bizarre and improbable but it fits!

Can't wait to discuss it with you, best wishes

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"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."

That was not the issue here, Garry. So donīt change the subject. The one and only issue is that you wrote "It seems that you are citing only those sources which concur with your hypothesis and disregarding those that don’t. But then, this should come as no great surprise..."

I find that revolting, and I take very much issue with it, which is why I would like an explanation.

"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."

If getting banned is something you are trying to avoid, then so much more reason to provide me with a good explanation to the above. Grave accusations like that DO belong to the boards - if you can substantiate them. So...?

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.

[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. Iīm 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 thatīs 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 ...

Iīm intrigued!

All 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]

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. Thatīs 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. Iīve spent some time with the gnawing suspicion that Lechmere was the Ripper, so I know!

Moreover ... nah; letīs cut it short!

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:

"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."

Thatīs 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 donīt 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 Iīd say Iīve 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 wonīt (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 Iīve 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 youīre 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 Lechmereīs route to work and his road to his motherīs 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 seemīs 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

[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 wouldnīt it?

The best,
Fisherman

[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

[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.

[Fisherman]

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

Sorry about that.

The best,
Fisherman