Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

In addition to this, Cross the ripper would have had nothing to fear from simply making his way to work because, as he said and nobody disputed, the body could have been mistaken for a tarpaulin - and ignoring a tarpaulin wasn't a crime.

Ignoring a tarpaulin wasn't a crime but it would have been very odd for
someone to have done so because I don't think that you would get many tarpaulins lying about the street. They cost money, and these were poor people who could sell such a thing. The natural thing would be to go over and look and see if the thing was damaged or saleable, surely. I cannot see how Cross could have used the excuse that he'd thought the body was 'just a tarpaulin', but had carried on to work without investigating further. It would be unbelievable.

It appears that as Paul arrived on the scene, Cross was either backing away from the body, or was close enough to have known that it wasn't a 'tarpaulin' in any case. This is borne out by the witness statements, even if you think that he was innocent.

So if he had scarpered, how could he have used the 'tarpaulin' story as an excuse for not stopping ?

[Fisherman]

Stephen Thomas:

"If Cross had been JTR he would have hurried off when he heard someone approaching."

Thatīs what you believe because you think it makes sense. Therefore, you conclude that he was not the killer.

So, somebody else did it. And that somebody was - according to you - disturbed by someone who approached. Now, according to the Stephen Thomas logic he would get up quickly and run off.

But he didnīt, did he? He instead noticed that somebody was coming, thought "damn - time to leave" - and then he covered the abdominal wounds ...?

And somebody else would have scared him off, not Lechmere, since he said that he would have noticed if anybody left the street as he arrived in it. So we should factor in not only Jack, but also a newcomer, who went down the street just before Lechmere, and who was not noticed by anybody. Someone who saw the body and did not care, or went by it, not noticing it.

Why would the killer cover up the abdominal wounds, Stephen? He never did that in any other case, on the contrary.
Who stood to gain from such a thing?

These questions need an answer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"The doorways and warehouse entances on the north side of Bucks row would not have been to shallow to hide a mugger or two?"

Dunno, Jon - but from what I have seen, the doorways on Essex wharf WERE shallow. I would appreciate if you can point to deeper doorways, situated roughly where Lechmere stood.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"In addition to this, Cross the ripper would have had nothing to fear from simply making his way to work because, as he said and nobody disputed, the body could have been mistaken for a tarpaulin - and ignoring a tarpaulin wasn't a crime."

If he was the killer, Caz, then the obvious reason he halted Paul would be to check out what he knew/had seen. This would fit very well together with the fact that he intimidated Paul, if he still had his anger of having had to abort the eviscerations written all over him.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Gary:

" we possess insufficient data to infer anything sinister in Cross’s behaviour on the night in question. We don’t know, for example, that the wind didn’t change direction and thus muffle Paul’s footsteps as he approached Cross. Nor do we know that Cross and Neil had precisely the same auditory acuity, or that Thain and Paul were the same weight and that their footfalls generated the same level of sound. Neither do we know that Thain’s boots were of the same type and condition as those worn by Paul."

Correct - we canīt know. Which is why one has to work from an assumption - perhaps faulty - that the sound levels were at least roughly comparable. The distances we compare are very different.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom:

"That's not entirely true and you know it."

Not really. I think it is a pretty fair picture of things.

"We're not brainwashed simpletons, Fish."

Then I never should have said so. Wait a sec; I didnīt ...!

"It's just a matter of there not being any 'evidence of guilt' to hang your hat on. "

On which suspect would that kind of hat fit then, Tom? I donīt see anybody complaining about suspects being promoted who have a lot less going for them than Lechmere ...?
Then again, there IS useful evidence in Lechmereīs case, the way I see things. And that comprises information that I have not as yet touched upon, Iīm afraid.

"Cross lived for years following the murders, did he not? What crimes is he known to have committed?"

What crimes were Dennis Rader known to have committed? Donīt step into the same trap as many posters do, Tom. There is no need for a serialist to have a criminal record, and - and that is an important and - how on earth would we know that Lechmere did not commit any crimes before, during and after the Ripper scare? In Raders case, it was not what he was known to have committed that was of interest - it was what he was NOT known to have committed.

" As of yet I haven't seen any reason to suspect Cross any more than Robert Paul"

Iīll leave that uncommented, considering the timeline of the case...

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Fisherman

Dunno, Jon - but from what I have seen, the doorways on Essex wharf WERE shallow. I would appreciate if you can point to deeper doorways, situated roughly where Lechmere stood.

I could only muster up the 1899 Goad`s. There appears to be breaks in the buildings along the north side.

[Fisherman]

Hi Jon!

Breaks, yes - but would they not be representing where there were gates, just like the Browns Stable Yard gates?

To me, the school building seems to offer the perhaps best gang robbery opportunity. Post one guy in Buckīs Row, one in Winthrop Street, and tax whatever is coming up the streets, the rest of the gang hiding at the western facade of the school.

But this wonīt get us anywhere, I fear. We will never know for sure what unsettled Paul.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

If Cross was so intimidating,all he had to do was say to Paul,'It's only a drunk sleeping it off",and then lead Paul away.

[Hunter]

He just nearly cut a woman's head off, slashes up her abdomen... and then goes up to Paul and puts his hand on his shoulder.

I believed I'd, at least, keep my hands in my pockets after doing all of that in very low light.

[Monty]

Exactly Hunter,

Kills a woman, seconds later drawns someones attention to it. This after noting their approach.

Beyond reason.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"If Cross was so intimidating,all he had to do was say to Paul,'It's only a drunk sleeping it off",and then lead Paul away."

Yes. IF he was absolutely certain that Paul had not seen what was going on, that is. If not - another story. In such a case heīd need to find out what Paul knew.

There is also the possibility that Lechmere actually enjoyed putting the whole show on, letīs not forget that.

Finally, it seems everybody thinks that Paul would have represented a great disadvantage to Lechmere, but this was not so - Robert Paul was about the best thing that could have happened to Lechmere, if he was the killer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hunter:

"He just nearly cut a woman's head off, slashes up her abdomen... and then goes up to Paul and puts his hand on his shoulder.

I believed I'd, at least, keep my hands in my pockets after doing all of that in very low light."

... since you would not know if they were very bloodied? Weīve been over that before - he could have dried his hands on Nicholsīclothes if he felt the need to, he could have worn gloves, he may not have bloodied his hands at all. Moreover, if he - perhaps - held Nichols by the hair with his left hand as he cut her throat with his right hand, then why would the left hand get any blood on it? Same thing with the abdomen - the hand that held the knife was the one that risked getting bloodied. And he had two hands, Hunter, meaning that he may have actively chosen to use his left hand to stop Paul IF he felt that his right hand had blood on it. Which it did NOT necessarily need to have.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Beyond reason."

Yes, considering how reasonable chaps serial killers are, some of them mentally sick, some of them psychopaths, you may have a point there, Monty...

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Monty:

"Beyond reason."

Yes, considering how reasonable chaps serial killers are, some of them mentally sick, some of them psychopaths, you may have a point there, Monty...

The best,
Fisherman

You seem to be under the illusion that all Serial Killers function beyond the realms of all reason Fish.

Its an error you need to rectify.

Your sacarasm only highlights the fact you have no reasonable arguement against the impausibility of this key series of events regarding Cross's alledged involvement in Nichols murder.

Monty