Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Monty]

The suspect list has been drawn up and added to over the years by people who do not understand the difference between

1. Those persons who were spoken to in relation to the investigation as part of that ongoing investigation (being spoken to would not make them a suspect)

2. Persons coming under suspicion (Cross)

3. Likely suspects.

3. Prime Suspect.

Many on that long suspect list should not even be on the list in my opinion

Yep,

Spot on.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Well, sorry about that, Trevor - at least Feigenbaum got mentioned by me, right ...?

As an aside, I very much agree about the the "find yourself a madman-approach".

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Spot on."

Hmm, Monty - who do YOU award the "likely suspect" and the "prime suspect" role?

Fisherman
curious

[Trevor Marriott]

Yep,

Spot on.

Monty

I am becoming worried now thats the second time you have agreed with me this year and its not even May yet

[caz]

We canīt tie Kosminsky to any of the victims in any fashion. The same goes for Tumblety, Levy, Cutbush, Bury ... you name them.

Just how "perverse" is it to "slander" them and point a finger at them as the Ripper, if this is the way we are supposed to do things? How damning is it to suggest Feigenbaum, Kelly, Hyams? Can you tell me?

These are men that are fair game in the business, but also men who we cannot place on the murder streets in the manner we can put Lechmere there, and at the correct times! Nor did they have their mothers living at an address that provides us with useful explanation to the Stride murder, geographically and timewise. Nor did they succeed to have themselves recorded by the wrong name for a 120 years.

But no, those who propose Lechmere should be ashamed of their perversion - he must not be regarded as a possible killer.

Ripperology is sometimes very interesting.

The best,

your perverted

Fisherman

Fifty-one wrongs don't make a right, Fish.

Since Cross was to all intents and purposes just the first person to see Nichols lying dead in Buck's Row, you'd need to place him at or near another murder scene 'at the correct time' to make anything of it. Of course the unhappy man discovered Nichols 'at the correct time' - someone had to! If Cross had been a minute or two later, it would have been Paul or someone else on their way to work who'd now be in the firing line. It's not good enough and it doesn't elevate him above the police suspects.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

A friend of mine who uses both this site and also JTR Forums now refers to Casebook as the conspiracy site. Suppose we are discussing whats been discussed on the two sites he'll invariably say, I saw such and such being discussed on the conspiracy site today.

His words not mine, but recently I can see where he is coming from.

Regards

Observer

[Tom_Wescott]

Say what you will about Charles Le Grand as a suspect, but it's on record that although I held an interest in him for some time, I did not begin seriously pursuing him and the writing of a book on him until evidence surfaced proving that he was a legitimate police suspect. Call me old fashioned, but I felt that was necessary in order for me to offer him to the world as a suspect. Plus, I have a problem with branding a man a murderer when there's virtually no reason to.

These are men that are fair game in the business, but also men who we cannot place on the murder streets in the manner we can put Lechmere there, and at the correct times! Nor did they have their mothers living at an address that provides us with useful explanation to the Stride murder, geographically and timewise. Nor did they succeed to have themselves recorded by the wrong name for a 120 years.

I'm a bit confused. Am I misremembering, or didn't you tell me it meant nothing when I pointed out that Le Grand - a police suspect and truly suspicious figure following the Stride murder - left the Olde Crowne Tavern (a mile away from Berner Street) at some time between midnight and 12:30am on the night of Stride's murder, thus putting him within a reasonable vicinity of the murder at the time it was committed? Taking this with the fact that he fits Schwartz's description of Pipeman, including the relatively rare feature of being about 6ft tall, I find this compelling, particularly in light of his subsequent actions which resulted in a completely fabricated suspect being offered up to the public and police. As compelling as all this is, you couldn't be bothered. But because Cross' mom lived in the vicinity of Stride's murder, you're ready to hang a man who otherwise has absolutely no suspicion attached to him? Man, the rapidly shifting goal posts are starting to make me dizzy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom:

" Am I misremembering, or didn't you tell me it meant nothing when I pointed out that Le Grand - a police suspect and truly suspicious figure following the Stride murder - left the Olde Crowne Tavern (a mile away from Berner Street) at some time between midnight and 12:30am on the night of Stride's murder, thus putting him within a reasonable vicinity of the murder at the time it was committed? "

Couldnīt say, Tom, since I donīt remember it. But I hope I said that it would not necessarily mean anything, since there would have been a lot of people within a concentrical mile, counted from Berner Street.

" But because Cross' mom lived in the vicinity of Stride's murder, you're ready to hang a man who otherwise has absolutely no suspicion attached to him?"

A/ Canīt hang him - heīs already dead.
B/ A heck of a lot more than his motherīs place has been presented, Tom. The Cable Street address is just one of many details pertaining to Lechmere. It sort of completed the picture, addresswise.

your very own pitbull,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Couldnīt say, Tom, since I donīt remember it. But I hope I said that it would not necessarily mean anything, since there would have been a lot of people within a concentrical mile, counted from Berner Street.

Yes, you kept referring to a 'square' mile and the 'thousands' of people who'd be out on the street at 1am. I never understood the argument, or where your 'square mile' fits in to it, nor how thousands of people could be on the street in that area past midnight and not get the riot guard called on them. I would love to see you take a Rorshach test. Your unwavering ability to overlook compelling evidence in favor of the irrelevant and mundane is a much bigger mystery to me than who killed Stride.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom:

" you kept referring to a 'square' mile and the 'thousands' of people who'd be out on the street at 1am."

That was wrong of me! I should of course have referred to FOUR square miles, if the tavern was a mile off Berner Street. Regretfully, that means that we have to factor in four square miles of people too ...

" Your unwavering ability to overlook compelling evidence in favor of the irrelevant and mundane is a much bigger mystery to me than who killed Stride."

ANYTHING is a bigger mystery to you than who killed Stride, remember? But I would advice against looking upon Lechmere as" irrelevant and mundane" - I suspect he was nothing of the sort.

When it comes to "compelling evidence", I have no problem realizing that Le Grand was apparently looked into by the police. But so were many, many others, and all of them could not have been the Ripper, could they? So thatīs how compelling that particular part is to me. The fact that we can place him in the approximate vicinity of one of the murders at the approximately correct time is of course not uninteresting - but it must be kept in mind that he would have been anything but alone there.
What more" compelling" evidence is there against Le Grand? A habit of using red ink? A criminal record? Such things call for the questions "Did the Ripper favour red ink?" and "Did the Ripper have a record?".

Itīs loose ground, Tom, the way I see it. Iīm sure, though, that once you launch your book, there will be more to bite into. I look forward to it - no matter that I donīt agree with you on many a score, you are always well researched and interesting when presenting a topic, and you make a good read out of it too. And just like you canīt tell whether Lechmere was the Ripper or not, I canīt tell whether Le Grand was. The fact that he does not ring much of a bell with me, does not mean that you are necessarily wrong. In ten years time, the world of Ripperology may well praise you for having brought the Ripper to justice, who knows?

In the mean time, though, I will stick with Lechmere - the guy, you know, who was not only found adjacent to a freshly killed victim, but who also suffered the strange fate of having the area he passed to on his way to work strewn with killed women, and who could not even get a break from it when he went to see his mother and daughter. The guy who called himself Cross when speaking to the police, whilst calling himself Lechmere in all other recorded documents but one, signed by his stepfather.

Irrelevant and mundane as he is, I find his company strangely intriguing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

I am becoming worried now thats the second time you have agreed with me this year and its not even May yet

Not as worried as I am Trevor, believe me.

Fish,

Henry Paul.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fish,

Now you're up to 'four square miles'? My goodness, you sure have Le Grand taking the long way, do you not? Anyway, my whole point was that I have a mountain so great evidence and am not even close to being convinced I've solved the case. And that's not due to lack of confidence in myself, it's due to my very high standards of proof. And yet here you are, proclaiming Cross the Ripper cuz his mom lived near a murder site. I just find it bewildering. My sympathies to the descendants of Charles Cross...and to Monty and Trevor for their recent agreements.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

"Hi Fish"

Hi Tom!

"Now you're up to 'four square miles'? My goodness, you sure have Le Grand taking the long way, do you not?"

Yep - and if you donīt behave, Iīll make that an even ten square miles. Nah, not really, but if you use a dividers, putting one end in Berner Street and the other at your tavern you will come up with around three square miles, so I was a bit harsh on you. Then again, just the one mile was way too generous!

" I have a mountain so great evidence ... "

... but you wonīt present it as yet, correct?

" ...and am not even close to being convinced I've solved the case."

Thatīs what happens when you havenīt got anything truly decisive. Correct me if Iīm wrong.

"And that's not due to lack of confidence in myself ..."

I know.

" ... it's due to my very high standards of proof"

Thatīs as it should be.

"And yet here you are, proclaiming Cross the Ripper cuz his mom lived near a murder site."

Eh ... not really. I am to begin with not claiming that he was the Ripper. I am claiming that of all the candidates I have looked into, he is by far the best one. And that is only to a very minor part dependent on his motherīs lodgings. There is a lot more, some of which has been presented, while other things have not.

"My sympathies to the descendants of Charles Cross"

Oh, they donīt seem to be upset about things. As far as I can tell, they are rational, gracious people, not in any manner disturbed by the Lechmere research.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Henry Paul"

As in ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"Since Cross was to all intents and purposes just the first person to see Nichols lying dead in Buck's Row, you'd need to place him at or near another murder scene 'at the correct time' to make anything of it. Of course the unhappy man discovered Nichols 'at the correct time' - someone had to! If Cross had been a minute or two later, it would have been Paul or someone else on their way to work who'd now be in the firing line. It's not good enough and it doesn't elevate him above the police suspects."

But thatīs exactly what can be done, Caz - Chapman died in Hanbury Street in the early morning hours of the 8:th of September, and Cross had taken that exact route on the 31:st of August.

Kelly died at at the approximate time he went to work, arguably passing near her home.

Tabram died in early August, directly adjacent to Old Montague Street, the closest route to his job.

Which of the famed police suspects answers up to something like this? And how can ALL police suspects be better bets than Lechmere - there was only the one Ripper, remember?
The police failed miserably to catch the Ripper. They failed equally miserably to procure any decisive evidence against any of their suspects. They felt pretty sure the job was done with Issenschmidt behind bars - and what happens? So much for that confidence.

Issenschmidt fit the bill - he was raving mad, and potentially violent. He howled at the moon, and the police wanted Jack to be a moonhowler to, or at the very least a criminally convicted man.

Be aware, Caz, that saying that Lechmere was just a good guy who stumbled on a victim is a story for which there is one source and one source only: Charles Allen Lechmere. And what do you think he would have done if he was the killer: told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Bringing Jack on the stage is as much or more conjecture as it is to cast Lechmere in the Ripperīs role. At least we know he was there, and that he spent time alone with the victim. A victim who was still twitching when Paul felt her breast (if we may rely in Paul - but Iīd advice against it!).

You may keep your police suspects, Caz. Take good care of them.

The best,
Fisherman