Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Trevor Marriott]

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

If I may come into this from a police perspective we dont know if it crossed the minds of the police that he could have been the killer of Nicholls and the other victims. But if it did then they would have no doubt checked him out thorougly both for his movements prior to him finding the body and also checking his movements for the dates of the other murders.

In the absence of anything to the contrary it is not sufficient for us 124 years later to suggest he was a suspect or should now be looked upon as a suspect.

As has been said, someone had to have found the body would be having this discussion if the body had been found at the time by another prostitute.

The time is right to be removing names from the suspect list not adding to it.

[Garry Wroe]

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.

I'm confused, Fish. My understanding is that you do not accept Stride as a Ripper victim. Yet here you are apparently treating the Berner Street crime as part of the series as an example of the 'evidence' implicating Lechmere.

Have I misunderstood your position?

[Fisherman]

Trevor:

"If I may come into this from a police perspective we dont know if it crossed the minds of the police that he could have been the killer of Nicholls and the other victims. But if it did then they would have no doubt checked him out thorougly both for his movements prior to him finding the body and also checking his movements for the dates of the other murders."

Everything points quite clearly to the police omitting to check Lechmere out - not least the thing that they believed he was named "Cross"!

"In the absence of anything to the contrary it is not sufficient for us 124 years later to suggest he was a suspect or should now be looked upon as a suspect."

Which is why things like his mothers/daughters recently discovered address has been dug up - that means that we are adding things "to the contrary". The police back in 1888 seem not to have noted the correlation between Lechmereīs road to work, his motherīs/daughterīs dwellings and the killing sites. It sounds naïve, I know, but it would appear that Lechmere was not the kind of material the police were looking for.

"As has been said, someone had to have found the body would be having this discussion if the body had been found at the time by another prostitute."

What an odd question! Of course the identity of the finder will have an impact. But that is not all there is to it, is it? The correlation between Lechmereīs road to job and the killings, the nameswop, the strange behaviour by the body etcetera must ALSO be weighed in!

"The time is right to be removing names from the suspect list not adding to it."

Is that how you as an ex-copper would go about it? I mean, Iīm all for eliminating suspects, but why would we not add people when we can clearly see that there is good reason to do so? Why close the door behind a group of suspects, of whom the only common denominator is that they have precious little on them to even hint at any Rippership?

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Monty:

"Henry Paul"

As in ...?

The best,
Fisherman

As in I'm bagging any individual who has, so far, not been named as a 'suspect'.

Its all the rage.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Aha. "Any individual", is it?

Have some faith, Monty. There is more to come. You may still be surprised, who knows.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"I'm confused, Fish. My understanding is that you do not accept Stride as a Ripper victim."

Then we do not share the same "understanding". Nor the confusion, luckily! If you take the trouble to read up on the adjacent Lechmere thread, you will see what I mean, and the confusion should hopefully go away.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

If Peter Sutcliffe had died after his last murder and not been identified as the Yorkshire Ripper, Fish would presumably now be making a case against "Les Battersby off of Corrie" because he found one of the victims and Les Battersby is not his real name.

This is how daft ripperology is becoming.

Love,

Caz
X

[harry]

One of the most important items of consideration to the killer,was not the geographical location of the kills,but the time needed to return to a safe abode. What must have been apparent,at least from Nicholls onwards,w as that the mutilations left an undeniable need to clean up.At least the hands and forearms would be messy,and he would not know,because of the darkness how much blood had smeared the rest of his clothes.Would a workplace be a safe and convenient refuge,allowing time and isolation to do the neccessary cleaning?I do not think so,unless it be a one man business,and Pickfords was anything but.

[Garry Wroe]

Then we do not share the same "understanding". Nor the confusion, luckily! If you take the trouble to read up on the adjacent Lechmere thread, you will see what I mean, and the confusion should hopefully go away.

Er, I'll give that one a miss if it's all the same to you, Fish.

[Fisherman]

I couldnīt be more indifferent about it, Garry!

Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

I'm pleased for you, Fish. But you still didn't answer the question I posed on this thread.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"One of the most important items of consideration to the killer,was not the geographical location of the kills,but the time needed to return to a safe abode."

Iīd submit that we cannot know how the killer looked upon this. There is, for instance, the possibility that he had some sort of hangup with the particular area in which he killed and the prostitutes there. I salute, however, that you seem to think that the killer looked for rational solutions to his urge/desire to kill - many others seem to look for madmen only.

"What must have been apparent,at least from Nicholls onwards, was that the mutilations left an undeniable need to clean up."

Well, if we are speaking canonicals, I think that Stride needs to be excluded here (that is, if I may be so bold as to work from the assumption that Stride DID belong to the tally. Not everybody seem to be willing to allow for me to do so ...)
Otherwise, you are of course right, Harry!

"At least the hands and forearms would be messy,and he would not know,because of the darkness how much blood had smeared the rest of his clothes."

Sounds roughly correct to me. Iīm not sure about the forearm bit, but it matters little in this context.

"Would a workplace be a safe and convenient refuge,allowing time and isolation to do the neccessary cleaning?I do not think so,unless it be a one man business,and Pickfords was anything but."

It certainly would not be the expected choice of a bloodied killer, canīt fault you on that score!
But there is much to consider here, Harry.

He may have washed up before arriving at his job. There were public water basins about. Maybe he protected his hands against the blood, using gloves? Who can tell?
Moreover, we do not know the conditions offered to him at Pickfordīs, do we? How many people (if any) did he consort with there in the early mornings? Did he have a stashing place there? Was he first to arrive in the mornings, unlocking the doors and going in to have a quiet washing up before his comrades arrived?

There are so many parameters that stay unknown to us in these respects, and we must not loose track of that. It is all good and well to say that he must have gotten himself very much bloodied and walked the streets with blood on his hands and arms - but we canīt tell to what true degree it applies, and since the murder places were spread over a significant area, we must realize that if the killer could not have avoided getting much bloodied and if there was no way to conceal it, well then we at least know that SOMEBODY walked the streets with blood all over him - without getting detected.
It is also very reasonable to assume that Lechmere would have been one of many carmen, consorting with numerous working comrades who would all have seen the blood if it was there - but we know just as little about this. And, in all honesty, we donīt even know that he DID go to work on the time we would expect him to, do we? What if he had made a deal with his employer to arrive later, taking all the time in the world to rid himself of incriminating evidence before he arrrived?

This all vaguely resembles the old "Toppy would have gone through the very strict plumber education, meaning that he could not have been the witness"-business. And then it surfaced that it was more or less a family tradition to fall into that plumbership later in life, and that the regulations spoken of were not followed in the fundamentalist manner suggested.

As long as we donīt know what happened in the context we are speaking of, it remains that your suggestions about the blood and the conditions at Pickfords are the obvious answers. But it also remains that if Lechmere was the killer, then the obvious answers did not apply. That is all I can say.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"you still didn't answer the question I posed on this thread."

Thatīs because I foresee a never ending demand me to explain, over and over again, how I could leave my chosen position that Stride could never have been a Ripper victim, and I donīt much desire such a thing. Especially not since the question as such is not asked using the correct predispositions.

So, once again, switch threads, Garry, and you shall be enlighted. Promise!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Being the courteous and helpful poster that I am, Garry, I decided to save you the trouble. Here is the excerpt, originally in answer to Ben (yes!):

"I think the evidence in the Stride case points more away from a Ripper deed than towards it.

I donīt exclude the possibility that it could have been the Ripper just the same - after all, there are parameters speaking for the Ripper.

I have never stated that I am in any way certain about Stride not being a Ripper victim. What I AM certain about is that the evidence does NOT point to the Ripper in any decisice way.

The added knowledge that Lechmereīs mother and daughter lived at an address to which Berner Street led, means that any rational theorist now has a new factor to weigh in into the Stride murder. It does not change the CRIME SCENE evidence, but when it can be shown that a man who is an immensely strong suspect in the Ripper case had a connection to the murder site ... well, you surely get my drift, donīt you? It is evidence too, see?"

I may also point out that I added this passage:

"Itīs just that it is a waste of space, since I have already explained this to you."

Now, Garry, I hope that this is quite enough for you? It rather covers the whole thing, the way I see it, and it would save very valuable space if we did not go on eternally discussing what I am allowed to think, given my previous posts. One of them posts, made years ago, even states a number (which I have forgotten) about how I judged the Stride crime scene evidence. I think - but I may of course be wrong - that I wrote back then that I saw it as a 60-40 or 55-45 per cent call in favour of the killing NOT being the Ripperīs.
But I was up against people who saw it as a 100-0 or 99-1 per cent call in favour of the Ripper, many of them thinking that their view should not be challenged.
I was - and am - of the meaning that it MUST be challenged whether Stride was a Ripper deed. But that does not mean and has never meant that I totally exclude such a thing; not nearly so.

If you still find all of this confusing, Garry, I sincerely hope that you will be able to let it sink in in time before I make another call, in another area, that is not exactly the same as the one I made yesterday. It is a habit of mine to always reassess the evidence as new information comes along. I even make a point of it to do so. I am convinced that I would be wrong not to do so.
Itīs rather like the thing with the guys who hanged Timoty Evans while Christie walked free - I mean, why would the hangman pride himself of things when he knew that he had gotten it wrong in the first place? Because you always need to cling on to your beliefs, come what may? Thatīs not for me, Iīm afraid.

With Stride, I donīt KNOW as such. Nor do you, come to think of it. It could still be either way. But the 147 Cable Street address and the saturday night timing of the deed does not in any way detract from the credibiity of the Lechmere bid.
Or are you of the meaning that my posts on the Stride killing denies me the right to conclude that? You see, that is how you come across, and to me, if this is what you mean, I frankly find it childish. I hope Iīm wrong.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

.

It is a habit of mine to always reassess the evidence as new information comes along. I even make a point of it to do so. I am convinced that I would be wrong not to do so.
Itīs rather like the thing with the guys who hanged Timoty Evans while Christie walked free - I mean, why would the hangman pride himself of things when he knew that he had gotten it wrong in the first place? Because you always need to cling on to your beliefs, come what may? Thatīs not for me, Iīm afraid.

I never thought that I'd ever be saying "I understand you", Fishy....but I do.

(and just as a point...I have always protested that such was the case when I argued for Hutchinson as my only suspect. I told you then that I would be ready to change my opinion if anyone could find a more convincing argument.

As it happens, I would still argue for Hutchinson. Since I'm not obliged to make a choice between Hutch and Cross...this isn't an election...I'm open to both. They have things in common).