Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

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

There you go, Ruby - thatīs ANOTHER changed mindset!

Did I say that I really like Avignon very much ...?

Cheers, Ruby!
Fisherman

[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."

Iīd really appreciate if you

A/ Did not put words in my mouth. They - and you - donīt belong there.

B/ Made less of a habit of calling me "daft" by ascribing things I have never said to me.

Do you think that you could do that for me, Caz?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Did I say that I really like Avignon very much ...?

Avignon's not such a bad City when you get to know it...

[Fisherman]

To be completely fair, Ruby, I must admit that my visit to Avignon took place more than twenty years ago,

Have they completed that bridge yet ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

To be completely fair, Ruby, I must admit that my visit to Avignon took place more than twenty years ago,

Have they completed that bridge yet ...?

The best,
Fisherman

The bridge was once a whole bridge, Fish. Then came a storm. Read Mdme de Sévigny.

[caz]

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."

Iīd really appreciate if you

A/ Did not put words in my mouth. They - and you - donīt belong there.

B/ Made less of a habit of calling me "daft" by ascribing things I have never said to me.

Do you think that you could do that for me, Caz?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fishy,

A/ You are confusing 'putting words in your mouth' with something else entirely. The ripper was never identified, which gives you the unashamed luxury of making a case against one of the persons who happened to find one of the bodies while going about their legitimate business, and who happened to use two names, also quite legitimately. That was my point. Making a hypothetical comparison with another case to make that point is not putting a single word in anyone else's mouth.

B/ Unless you have adopted two new names - "ripperology" (hmmm, mighty suspicious) and "daft" - then no, I was not calling you "daft", Fish, much less making a 'habit' of doing so.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"You are confusing 'putting words in your mouth' with something else entirely."

Am I now? I could have sworn that you wrote "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..."

... and to me, that pretty much equals putting words and opinions in my mouth. Perhaps you could explain why I should see it differently?

"The ripper was never identified, which gives you the unashamed luxury of making a case against one of the persons who happened to find one of the bodies while going about their legitimate business..."

Going about oneīs legitimate business does not preclude going about other businesses too, Caz. Killers are - no exceptions - people who at times "go about their legitimate business". Thus that particular argument is useless.

"I was not calling you "daft", Fish, much less making a 'habit' of doing so."

Of course not. You were merely making a hypothetical comparison, including me and daftness. It is much the same like saying "If Caz had a chance, she would presumably rule that everybody who did not buy into Maybrick should be shot."
Such a thing would not say anything derogatory about YOU, it would only make for a nice hypothetical reasoning. Have I understood you right?

Caz, you are a bright lady. You know your stuff, and you can argue a case rationally and without scorning your opponents.

You can do it the other way around too.

I much prefer the first option, though. And I can assure you that the Lechmere case is more than worthy of a respectful approach.

So, if you please...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

It doesn’t seem to be going down terribly well at the moment, this Cross business, does it?

It doesn’t help that you keep repeating points that have already been addressed numerous times. Cross works very badly as Chapman’s killer because he would have been due at work at the likely time of her death, along with the vast majority of Carmen. If long-standing employees were permitted to turn up hours late for work, I can hardly envisage Pickfords surviving very long as an enterprise. The same very much applies to Kelly, whose residence wasn’t especially close to Cross’ work route. The mutilations in that case were extensive and would have taken considerable time to complete - time which Cross did not have without being seriously, noticeably, and sackably late for work.

There is no evidence that he ever took Old Montague Street, so the proposed “tie” to George Yard is currently non-existent. As Canter’s research demonstrates, the vast majority of serial killers are “marauders”, whereas Cross would have been a “commuter”, and thus “very rare”. You argue that Canter doesn’t apply to Cross, whereas the sensible perspective is that Cross doesn’t apply to Canter. The latter's findings related specifically to the offenders’ current homes (and how the majority of serialists operate in relation to that) and not past “comfort zones”.

It amazes me that a small number of posters bought straight into the stuff about Cross being “tied” to all the crime scenes without making any effort to check for themselves.

“We therefore KNOW that if he was the killer, then he killed en route to his job.”

Which the vast majority of serial killers don’t, for good reason.

I still don’t think you’re quite grasping this Stride business. You were formerly in the habit of arguing very staunchly in favour of Stride as a non-ripper victim, and these arguments were presumably based on your interpretation of the crime scene evidence. The arrival of a recently latched-onto “suspect” does not change any of that crime scene evidence, and thus should not make you any more pro-inclusion than you were before. By all means, change your mind and become more sympathetic to the Stride-as-ripper-victim stance, but it has to be for a good, crime scene evidence-related reason, and not because Cross’s mum lived somewhere south of Berner Street.

Logically, if you are of the opinion that Stride was probably not a ripper victim, it stands indisputably to reason that the Cable Street issue is probably not relevant to Cross’ candidacy. That cannot possibly fail to make sense. Now, I’m not the only person to register this inconsistency of reasoning, and if you don’t wish for others to draw attention to it, it’s probably best if you eased off with the repeated claims that the maternal residence in Cable Street increases the likelihood of Cross being a serial killer.

“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”

It was most assuredly never a “family tradition” to “fall into plumbership later in life. The indications are that Toppy’s father entered the pluming profession as soon as it was feasible to do so, and it logically follows that Toppy did likewise. But please let’s derail this thread in a Toppy direction.

As is generally acknowledged by now, there was nothing remotely intimidating about Cross per se. Paul was simply perturbed by the circumstance, occasioned by the discovery of a body, of being accosted in a dark street.

“There you go, Ruby - thatīs ANOTHER changed mindset!”

“Another” in addition to whom, and as a result of who saying what? If you mean the recruitment of more “Crossites”, I’m afraid that judging from the general feedback, you might have your work cut out.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"The bridge was once a whole bridge, Fish. Then came a storm. Read Mdme de Sévigny."

Ehrm - I have been to Avignon, like I said. The bridge bit was a joke ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It doesn’t seem to be going down terribly well at the moment, this Cross business, does it?"

On the contrary! It goes exceptionally well. And I am not speaking about what a number of posters think of it. They donīt have all the information.

...aaaand - NOTHING new...? All old, long since trodden paths? Wow.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hey, Ben - did you get the time to find yourself Lechmereīs old addresses? It is all easily accessible on the threads, but if you canīt find it, just let me know, and Iīll help out.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Hi Fish

You are going to have to wait 25 years or else write a book now, claiming Lech was JtR, wrote the diary, was into black magic and had ties to the royals.

I know i've argued with you against lech on the other thread but to be quite honest, he is a better "Suspect" than most of the people listed on this website IMHO.

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"You are going to have to wait 25 years or else write a book now, claiming Lech was JtR, wrote the diary, was into black magic and had ties to the royals."

I was thinking more like two months or something like that.

"I know i've argued with you against lech on the other thread but to be quite honest, he is a better "Suspect" than most of the people listed on this website IMHO."

That IS pretty damn obvious, Abby ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

We all laugh or take the piss when yet another famous artist is squeezed into the frame (no pun intended but gratefully received). But most of us are sensible enough not to take such theories - or theorists - seriously.

In a way, I think the Cross theory is almost as bad, because it smacks of a plausibility that it doesn't really deserve, with the result that relatively intelligent people can get taken in, and begin to see evidence where there is actually none at all.

In both examples a case has to be manufactured from scratch by putting the worst possible interpretations on an individual's known actions, family background and so on, and filling the numerous gaps with imagined nastiness, where all could be totally innocent.

In short, that's not a very nice pursuit, is it?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

In both examples a case has to be manufactured from scratch by putting the worst possible interpretations on an individual's known actions, family background and so on, and filling the numerous gaps with imagined nastiness, where all could be totally innocent.

In short, that's not a very nice pursuit, is it?

I agree! Therefore we should scratch all the named suspects that are listed on this website and never slander another suspects good name on the message boards.

And this would lead us to the only valid unamed suspect- Blotchy. Who in my opinion is the most likely of any of them to have been JtR.

[Brenda]

.

"Suspect" is such a strong word. I think this guy might be better described as a "Person of Interest"