Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Fisherman]

Brenda:

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

Iīve been there. Iīve even been at the "person of little interest" stage. But having looked into the man, and having weighed things together, I have arrived at the stage "prime suspect".

Others will disagree, but as far as Iīm concerned, this is the one person that goes beyond the "person of interest" categorization. So you are going to have to forgive me for not taking your advice, Brenda. I would consider taking it for any other of the suspects, though.

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Unconvinced

I'm sorry Fish...I have McCarthy and Ward ancestors living in this area (strong Whitechapel/Ratcliff history), at one stage living in Queen Anne Street about two minutes from Bucks Row...one in particular, a dodgy character, using a false name, (with far less justification than Cross), doubtless walking to work every day along similar routes...does this automatically make him a suspect? No, of course not...I expect hundreds of others did likewise...so why should innocently stumbling across a victim one day make Cross more of a likely candidate than my ancestor? No reason at all as far as I can see, other than it suits your convenience...sorry Fish...don't see it

Dave

[Fisherman]

My convenience? Just how "convenient" do you think it is to be called daft and a pervert??

Convenience does not enter the equation at all, Dave. Wherever did you get that from?

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

I've neither called you daft nor a pervert Fisherman...wherever do you get that from? Presumably someone else...Forget them please and answer the point I made...after all I merely contended that having a strong connection with the area and a regular route to work does NOT necessarily make anybody more a suspect than another...and I suspect that, even in your view, I might be correct as you are clearly wriggling...

Dave

[Steven Russell]

In murder cases, the first person to come under suspicion is the one who finds or reports the body. Now I understand that the police of 1888 were unfamiliar with serial killers but they cannot have been unfamiliar with murder; suspecting the finder of the body would have applied then as it does now. Cross would certainly have been questioned and must have been able to satisfy police of his innocence.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Cogidubnus]

Absolutely Steven...they had no other tools other than (a) catching someone in the act or (b) gaining a confession...so you can bet they ALWAYS looked at the discoverers...but this has already been discussed...I want Fish to address the point I made in Post 62

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Steven,

You're absolutely correct. As Caz stated earlier, Paul did not find Cross at all suspicious once the men had been introduced. And as he himself stated, he was fully prepared to find him up to no good. The police found no weapons on the men, nor any discarded in the area, and a simple enquiry at his work would have confirmed his hours at work, thus his reason for being at THAT spot at THAT time.

Cross is singled out because of the assumption that Nichols was the Ripper's first victim, but we don't know that's the case. John Reeves found Tabram. Should we write him up as her murder? Or Cross' accomplice? Then we'd only need to find out which one of them was a pipe smoker.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garry Wroe]

As Canter’s research demonstrates, the vast majority of serial killers are “marauders”, whereas Cross would have been a “commuter”, and thus “very rare”.

One has to be careful here, Ben. Since the spatial distribution of the Ripper's crime scenes is relatively restricted when compared to the average sequential offender, there is an increased likelihood of the Ripper having been a commuter. Although I personally don't subscribe to the view that the killer lived outside the area circumscribed by his crimes, Lechmere's Ripper candidacy cannot be undermined on the basis of the empirical data. Quite the contrary, in fact. In all other respects, however, I agree entirely with the views expressed within your post.

[Garry Wroe]

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.

Thank you, Fish. Most helpful.

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?"

Coincidence, Fish, not evidence. And nor is Lechmere an ‘immensely strong suspect’. Not in an evidential sense, at any rate.

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.

Like a number of other posters, Fish, you have a tendency to resort to misattribution when feeling the pressure. I have never at any time stated what you are or are not ‘allowed to think’, and nor would I ever presume to do so. What I did do was seek clarification with regard to an assertion you made on this thread, a statement that appeared to my mind to fly in the face of arguments you have repeated consistently and robustly with reference to the Berner Street crime. Hence my request for clarification. Nothing more; nothing less.

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.

That rather depends, Fish. If you change your mind on the basis of the evidence alone, that is an evolution of thinking which is to be commended. If, on the other hand, you change your mind merely to make the evidence fit a theory, that is confirmation bias, an approach which is definitely not worthy of commendation.

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.

Given your somewhat hysterical response to what was a simple request for clarification, Fish, you might care to look a little closer to home before labelling others ‘childish’.

[Lechmere]

The case against Cross isn’t just based upon his being the person to find Polly’s body, nor that he used a name that he was never recorded as using before – it is based on a whole host of things that combine to form a compelling case. I find it interesting that those who resist Cross being regarded as a legitimate suspect always misrepresent the case against him when doing so.
On the issue of whether the police would have searched Cross and maybe questioned him closely, if you study the circumstances of the case it is almost certain that this did not happen for a variety of reasons which have been discussed before.
One thing on his name – law abiding people didn’t use aliases. We know some people did use aliases because both their alternative name came to light at the time and both were recorded. This did not happen with Cross undoubtedly because he was not investigated. His real name came to light only because the census recorded went on line. We know now more about who lived where than the police could have known back then.

[Steven Russell]

We know now more about who lived where than the police could have known back then.

I find this extremely difficult to believe. All we have is scant documentary evidence e.g. censuses and newspaper and inquest reports. The police "back then" had a major advantage over us in that they were present in the area at the actual time with access to all contemporary records.

We are only aware of a fraction of the information gathered at the time. We cannot go back in time and question people or knock on doors.

In my opinion, this comment from Lechmere is absolutely staggering in its naivete and hubris.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Barnaby]

From skimming this thread, the arguments for excluding Cross from the Suspects page include:

1. There is no evidence linking him to the crimes.
2. He is a bad fit (location/timing) for some of the crimes.
3. Very few people think he is the Ripper.
4. We would be slandering a (most likely) innocent person.

Now, let's apply the same criteria to the "suspects" currently residing in this section on Casebook. There's little evidence against all of these people, highly unlikely suspects abound, and we are slandering all or at least almost all of these people.

Why are we applying different standards to Cross?

Perhaps this section needs cleaned up. To people new to the case, appearing in this section sort of legitimizes their candidacy. If we simply are going to add and not purge the list, Cross belongs.

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"I've neither called you daft nor a pervert Fisherman...wherever do you get that from?"

Of course you havenīt, and I did not mean to convey the impression that you had! You must excuse me if that was how I came across.
But the fact remains that these things HAVE been said about my stance on Lechmere, and that was why I said that it is anything but "convenient" to chapmion my view.

"answer the point I made...after all I merely contended that having a strong connection with the area and a regular route to work does NOT necessarily make anybody more a suspect than another...and I suspect that, even in your view, I might be correct as you are clearly wriggling..."

Aha. Well, much as you have not called me daft or perverted, you opt for a wriggling. And that is every bit as wrong. I think you will find that I am very steadfast on this matter.

About your point, I am not too ignorant to know that the area was a crowded one. If we were to judge by that only, many thousands of men would be of interest. No rocket science, Iīd say.

So, how about the connection to his work route? Thatīs another story. To begin with, we can single him out as the only person who was alone with Nichols. I donīt think your friends and relatives compare on that point ...

This is of course what we need to focus on from the outset. Then we add that the clothing was pulled down on Nichols, contrary to the other Ripper cases, where the killer either did not care a iota, or - perhaps more likely - "displayed" his work.
Now, if the killer either did not care, or "displayed", then why cover Nichols? Who would benefit from that? A killer that had fled? No. A killer that was still there, but wanted to hide what he had done? Yes.

Arguably, the covering up would have been coupled to a recognized risk on behalf of the killer to get caught. And this points a finger at Lechmere.

And what does he do when asked about his name? Correct - he gives a name that he does not use in any official papers. It is not "Smith" however, something that would have gotten him into deep **** if the police had taken an interest and checked his name out. It is Cross, a name that he CAN somewhat justify using if asked. He also gives his correct address, perhaps for the same reason - giving a false one would be very telling, if further checked.

Now, this alone is something that should have us very interested. Already at this stage, we should ask ourselves "could he have been the killer?", but nobody did, since there was no pattern to see on the "body display" score as yet, and since nobody checked the name out. We know, in retrospect, that there was reason for much doubt, but the police did not do so.

It is with these insights we should look on Lechmere. "Hey, maybe he did it" should be recognized, and THEN we should take a look on the further developments and see whether there was anything in them to point to a substantiation of our suspicions. And THAT is why we should raise our eyebrows when the victims, one by one, happen to end up killed in the exact area he traversed en route to job, and at the approximate timespan when he would have been there.
After that, we need a checking point, and the Stride killing is just one such thing. It deviates, since it is NOT along his working route and NOT at the time he walked to Pickfordīs. And whaddoyouknow - it takes place on his night off, and it occurs close to the place his mother lives with his own daughter. People that he would arguably see when not working - say, perhaps, on the weekends? Moreover, these quarters were his old stomping ground, having lived in Mary Ann Street in 1871, and in James Street (todays Burslem Street) in 1881, when the census was taken, moving from there to Doveton Street in June (not May, as I earlier stated) 1888, just a few weeks before the Tabram killing.

Now, find me any suspect that comes even close to this set of unlucky circumstances, and I will have two people to take an interest in. The bottom line is that you cannot do so. The rest of the contenders are in the police papers NOT because the authorities had any hard evidence at all connecting them to the killings. They are, in most cases, there because they answered up to a mental image of what the killer would be like. In other cases, they would have been there since other people stated to the police that they held suspions about them. In each case, however, it will have been cases where the police asked themselves "Mr X, eh? Well, letīs see if we can make him fit the bill." And thatīs as it should be - I am not implying any agenda on behalf of the police, I am merely saying that when does not have a clue, one picks people who MAY have been the killer, and check them out. Thatīs what the police did back then - and it led them down a hundred blind alleys.

Thatīs just how "wriggling" I am, Dave.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Steven Russell:

" Cross would certainly have been questioned and must have been able to satisfy police of his innocence."

But why do the police think he was called "Cross", if that was the case? If they checked him out, why did it not surface that he was called Lechmere?

And bear in mind, Steven, that Swanson himself, some weeks after the killing, stated in a report that Nichols was found by TWO carmen! That was how informed the police got themselves about the fact that "Cross" had been alone with Nichols and how much interest they took in the implications of it!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"Cross is singled out because of the assumption that Nichols was the Ripper's first victim, but we don't know that's the case. "

He is no such thing, Tom. Have you noticed where George Yard is situated? Exactly, the fewest of meters from Old Montague Street, the route closest from Doveton Street to Broad Street.

Lechmere is singled out for a NUMBER of reasons, but an assumption that Nichols was first does not belong to them.

The best,
Fisherman