Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Tom_Wescott]

SPOILER ALERT: Read Fisherman's article in Rip 126 before reading on.

The new issue of Rip is out with Fisherman's article. It's very short, so it shouldn't take anyone long to read. I read it first (well, following the editorial). My initial impression is that I liked it, but was quite disappointed that Fish didn't include ANY of his routes, maps, and data that to him were the CLINCHER for accepting Cross as a viable suspect. This is exactly what I did in my Le Grand essay, except I took 52 pages to not include any of my reasons. So kudos to Fish for his brevity.

It seemed to me he was arguing for Cross as Nichols' murderer, as opposed to the Ripper himself. Unless we're just supposed to take for granted that the one must be the other. But I want to know why I should accept Cross as a suspect in the other murders? Is a part 2 in the works?

The theory is plausible, but not without its flaws. I won't get into those now, but I WILL say that what I DID like was Fish's obvious of a curious fact that I had not picked up on before...Cross told PC Mizen that a body had been found, but did not tell him that he and Paul...or even just himself...had found the body. Is this because Cross was trying to avoid close inspection (remember, his knife was still on him). That is a possibility. But Fish doesn't seem to have considered the other option, that being the very reason Cross himself gave at that time...that he just wanted to get to work on time.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

That´s alright by me, Dave - when I sense that the last laugh belongs to me, I am generally generous with the first one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Hi towboydds...in case nobody's said it already, welcome to Casebook...odd place for a newbie to surface though! To preserve your good reputation I should stay away from these disreputable wights!

(sorry Fish and Lechmere...couldn't resist that!)

Every good wish

Dave

[towboydds]

As a newbie to the site I am still interested in gaining a 'Person of Interest Pool'. Where I have been interested in this case and have been reading books on the matter for around 30 years, i still have not gained the knowledge that some/many seem to possess about the subject. I am looking forward to learning from everyone.

[Lechmere]

Maybe but the were clearly exonerated later

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all. I don't see Pizer playing a part in this just yet. And there was NEVER a 'group of people' involved in the Pizer theory, but there was Tomkins and the slaughter men. And I thought there was an outside possibility of Cross and Paul. More than likely, in my opinion, this is referring to the slaughter men.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Would he not have been "immediately concerned in the crime", though ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

There was a lot of nonsense spoken of in the press no doub often fed by police wishful thinking. Could it relate to Pizer?

[Fisherman]

Hi Tom!

Should that not be the Bristol Mercury? With an l?

Interesting stuff, anyways! But I don´t see it relating to either Cross/Paul or the horse-slaughterers.
A man "not immediately concerned in the crime" but with "knowledge of the circumstances" of it all ...? Who may make a confession? Who would that be?
Much thought back then was related to the knowledge of gangs in the area, and as it is spoken of more than just the one man, it becomes tempting to think along those lines. But who the purported snitch would be in such a case is beyond me - sounds more like a relative or something like that, rather than a gang member.

Anyway, Lechmere was the guy who did it. Once we realize that, we can all go home

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Howard posted this on the other site...very, very interesting. So, either it's referring to Cross/Paul as potential suspects in the Nichols murder, or it's referring to Tomkins and the other slaughtermen. Any thoughts? It's from the Briston Mercury, Sept. 6th, 1888.

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Forums%202012/sep6.jpg

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Where in the world did I find this frieze sculpture of the no 1 Ripper suspect going about his work...

And if he doesn't handle that beehive more carefully he's going to get stung...then he'll be a very cross Paul...

Dave

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Lechmere;221297]Ah Madam Retro

Ok the fox in hen house analogy isn’t great –

Thank you.

From testimony it seems the streets were dark and very deserted.
As I indicated

The lonlier a place is, and the fewer people, then all the more likelier to pay attention to individuals.

I would say that an increased sense of fear due to the dark, and a feeling of vulnerability and isolation, would make one more subtly attentive to passing people.

– I very much doubt that Hanbury Street was his regular route and I suspect he (or any other suspect) usually picked up is victims on the main thorough fares – Whitechapel Road- Whitechapel High Street, Aldgate High Street – Commercial Street – which were more anonymous. This anonymity would have helped whoever was the culprit of course.

True, I 's'pose

Yes I have often argued against the likelihood that Hutchinson (if he were the culprit) would have gratuitously inserted himself in the case when he had no need to – and then he gave press interviews as well.

Serial killers do have a sense of invulnerability, power, and of being cleverer than the establishment though...

Cross was somewhat forced into the case by his discovery by Paul and then their bumping into Mizen. Whereas Hutchinson became a publicity seeker. I don’t buy the idea that he discovered the nature of Lewis’s testimony nor do I think he was identical with Lewis’s wide-awake man – as that connection was made by precisely no one at the time.

I do buy it.

The sense of empowerment argument also doesn’t work for Hutchinson as most claim he stopped after Kelly. For Hutchinson there are difficulties in claiming he continued with Mackenzie and so on – his publicity seeking seems to suggest this for a start.

Excellent arguement for Mackenzie. ??? No clear answer. The torsos fit better (changing MO due to lots of reasons).

On prostitute client etiquette – all I can say is I have made enquiries.

Fascinated. Please elucidate.

The fundamental reason for the prostitute choosing the location is that the prostitute will always want to feel in control of that aspect. They wouldn’t go to the man’s chosen location as they might walk into an ambush where they would be robbed or attacked or whatever. Obviously they could be attacked in their chosen location (as seems to have happened in this instance) but it is a case of minimising risk.

The bottom line is, one was desperate and pissed, and the other held the money and thus immediate escape route to pressing problems.

I feel that if the bloke was confidence inspiring enough (and this was at the beginning of the series of murders, don't forget), , then his persuasive arguments were always going to win.

Sweet talking doesn’t really work with prostitutes.

Hmmmn...I think that they are human beings and women like any others.

I included Barnett as he was a local who some people regard as a suspect

.
The only thing against poor Joe is that he was a collateral victim, in my opinion.

I don’t regard any on that list as very viable – Hutchinson and Kosminsky are the best though but flawed for different reasons.

Strike out Kosminsky. Cross is also flawed.

[Lechmere]

Where in the world did I find this frieze sculpture of the no 1 Ripper suspect going about his work...

[Lechmere]

Ah Madam Retro

Ok the fox in hen house analogy isn’t great – I meant to convey that when he was with his victim, immediately before striking, his base instincts would very likely have taken over from his calculating brain. This state would persist while he perpetrated the murder. This also explains why he allowed Paul to get so close – as he was absorbed in his task. (I suspect he realised Paul was there at 100 yards – not 40).

I doubt if there was much ‘good morning’ greeting in that part of London, where the population was cosmopolitan and very transitory. From testimony it seems the streets were dark and very deserted.
As I indicated – I very much doubt that Hanbury Street was his regular route and I suspect he (or any other suspect) usually picked up is victims on the main thorough fares – Whitechapel Road- Whitechapel High Street, Aldgate High Street – Commercial Street – which were more anonymous. This anonymity would have helped whoever was the culprit of course.

Yes I have often argued against the likelihood that Hutchinson (if he were the culprit) would have gratuitously inserted himself in the case when he had no need to – and then he gave press interviews as well. Cross was somewhat forced into the case by his discovery by Paul and then their bumping into Mizen. Whereas Hutchinson became a publicity seeker. I don’t buy the idea that he discovered the nature of Lewis’s testimony nor do I think he was identical with Lewis’s wide-awake man – as that connection was made by precisely no one at the time.

The sense of empowerment argument also doesn’t work for Hutchinson as most claim he stopped after Kelly. For Hutchinson there are difficulties in claiming he continued with Mackenzie and so on – his publicity seeking seems to suggest this for a start.

On prostitute client etiquette – all I can say is I have made enquiries.
The fundamental reason for the prostitute choosing the location is that the prostitute will always want to feel in control of that aspect. They wouldn’t go to the man’s chosen location as they might walk into an ambush where they would be robbed or attacked or whatever. Obviously they could be attacked in their chosen location (as seems to have happened in this instance) but it is a case of minimising risk. Sweet talking doesn’t really work with prostitutes.

I included Barnett as he was a local who some people regard as a suspect. I don’t regard any on that list as very viable – Hutchinson and Kosminsky are the best though but flawed for different reasons.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fiddymont. Don't laugh quite yet. With books coming out naming the wives of non-starter suspects as the Ripper, and the guy who shot John Wilkes Booth, you could very well be the next one named!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott