Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Fisherman]

Monty:

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

I would say that I have fought a battle to prove the exact opposite, Monty – I am the one, remember, that warns people not to look for the Ripper in the loonie-bin.
It´s another thing altogether that I do not think that Lechmere was an ordinary man. I think he was very resourceful and pretty cold-bloodied - and quite possibly somewhat amused by playing games. Thus my remark to you.

"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."

My sarcasm as such was brought on by having the Lechmere bid called silly and beyond reason. Maybe I should have pulled my punches somewhat, given that you are obviously not factoring in the things I factor in myself. Therefore, you will not reach the same conclusions. And therefore, also, your stance is a more reasonable one (though not wholly) - for now. But as I have said before, Monty: Have some faith ...!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Methinks?

Oh if only I have the time.

Monty

[Monty]

Monty:

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

I would say that I have fought a battle to prove the exact opposite, Monty – I am the one, remember, that warns people not to look for the Ripper in the loonie-bin.
It´s another thing altogether that I do not think that Lechmere was an ordinary man. I think he was very resourceful and pretty cold-bloodied - and quite possibly somewhat amused by playing games. Thus my remark to you.

"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."

My sarcasm as such was brought on by having the Lechmere bid called silly and beyond reason. Maybe I should have pulled my punches somewhat, given that you are obviously not factoring in the things I factor in myself. Therefore, you will not reach the same conclusions. And therefore, also, your stance is a more reasonable one (though not wholly) - for now. But as I have said before, Monty: Have some faith ...!

All the best,
Fisherman

I didn't realise you knew Cross so well. Resourceful, cold blooded and enjoys playing games. That's pretty insightful.

No, I factor in the reported facts. Fact is Cross approached Paul and called him to see Nichols, he drew attention to the whole scene and for no valid reason. He ran a massive risk which goes beyond reason and logic.

I do not rely on faith, just the facts.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"I didn't realise you knew Cross so well."

I know, Monty!

"Resourceful, cold blooded and enjoys playing games. That's pretty insightful."

No. It´s simple recognition of what went down. And I will show you why!

"I factor in the reported facts. Fact is Cross approached Paul and called him to see Nichols, he drew attention to the whole scene and for no valid reason. He ran a massive risk which goes beyond reason and logic."

Ah, but you are wrong here, methinks! There was a VERY valid reason for approaching Paul - you see, Paul was part of his ticket out from Buck´s Row. He realized that tagging along with Paul would give him a sort of alibi. He knew that the police, on finding Nichols, would probably go looking for a human monster, a madman with a taste for cutting people up in the open street. What they would NOT go looking for was - for example - two carmen walking to job together. They had a reason for being in the streets, and their being in company made it very improbable that they were a pair of eviscerators.
Thus, Monty, there was a good and valid reason for Lechmere to appreciate Pauls company on that cold August morning! And THAT´S why I call him resourceful and coldblooded, and why I think that there is a fair chance that he did not mind playing games.

"He ran a massive risk which goes beyond reason and logic."

To begin with, Monty, whoever it was that put a knife to Nichols´ belly, he sure as hell took a huge risk, right? There is no way we can look at the Ripper murders and find a solution where the killer did not risk his neck. The rewards of killing were great enough for him to do what he did, risks or no risks.

But we are talking Lechmere here, and the risks HE took, if he was the killer! And those risks, Monty, were greatly diminished - not increased! - by joining forces with Paul. A lone man, running like a rabbit, would risk far, far more than a carman in company with another carman, both being on the streets for valid reasons, walking casually together, and both giving their companion a sort of alibi.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I notice that the pulled-down skirt has been raised again, in more ways than one! This is entirely unsuspicious in relation to Cross. The only reason no attempt at concealment was made with later victims is because their mutilations were too extensive. There was no point pulling down Eddowes’ skirts with her face mutilated and her intestines thrown over the shoulder. Had the mutilations not been so severe, the killer might well have pulled down the skirts, perhaps to give him that extra fleeing time.

Equally unsuspicious is his use of a name he had used before – that of his stepfather. He didn’t just pluck it from the aether, like the genuinely suspicious “Howard Henry Holmes” apparently did. It was an entirely legitimate use of a genuine name that he had uses in the past.

I don’t think anyone’s going to tire of refuting the erroneous claim that several victims were killed en route to work. That is absolutely not the case. If he took the Hanbury Street “route” on a regular basis (and we have no reason to believe her ever took any other), he would have passed Chapman’s murder scene only. Miller’s Court would not have been far away, but it certainly wasn’t “en route”. In any case, Cross is a poor suspect for both these murders and he would have been due at work, in all overwhelming probability, before these women were murdered.

If people don’t believe Stride was a ripper victim, it is waste of their own time to argue that Cross is a compelling suspect in the Stride murder and thus a compelling ripper candidate. That makes no sense whatsoever, as several contributors here have observed. Not that a mother living in Cable Street is a particularly compelling connection to Stride in any case. Other, far more “compelling” suspects actually lived a stone’s throw away from more than one murder scene.

People are simply misrepresenting and exaggerating the “case” against Cross and then asking people to show them a suspect who comes close. It’s little wonder that the idea seems to be going down rather badly.

There is absolutely no guarantee that Paul would have heard Cross’ footsteps from the entrance to Brady Street had the latter been on the move, and thus certainly no reason to think that Cross was stationary at the murder site from Paul’s right turn into Buck’s Row. In addition, unless Paul himself had decidedly clippy-cloppy boots, there is nothing remotely “strange” about Cross first detecting his presence a few yards away. If Cross really could detect Paul all the way from the Brady Street eastern entrance, there was even less reason to remain at the body and await the latter’s arrival. He could have fled the scene immediately, and commenced his escape as the oblivious Paul continued to walk down Buck’s Row. Instead, according to the Cross proponents, he deliberately waits for Paul to arrive on the scene in order to engineer an unnecessary bluff that involves approaching a policeman with his murder weapon still secreted about his person. It just isn’t plausible.

I’d much rather see all this research and unpublished material that people keep threatening to produce, than continued repetition of the current arguments that very few people are finding convincing.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"The only reason no attempt at concealment was made with later victims is because their mutilations were too extensive."

Interesting guess. But there would have been the possibility to pull a blanket over Kelly, at least ... (and don´t tell me about the flesh on the table - I KNOW that already).

No, Ben, I think you are simply wrong on this. It was a deflecting manouvre, by the looks of things.

"There is absolutely no guarantee that Paul would have heard Cross’ footsteps from the entrance to Brady Street had the latter been on the move"

Correct - no guarantee, only good reason to believe so.

"unless Paul himself had decidedly clippy-cloppy boots, there is nothing remotely “strange” about Cross first detecting his presence a few yards away."

Well, considering that Neil heard his colleague more than a hundred yards away, I´d say there is something decidedly strange about it. Different mileage, perhaps ...?

"If Cross really could detect Paul all the way from the Brady Street eastern entrance, there was even less reason to remain at the body and await the latter’s arrival. He could have departed from the scene immediately, and commenced his escape as the oblivious Paul continued to walk down Buck’s Row."

You are forgetting that Lechmere himself stated that if there had been anybody leaving the street after he had entered it, he would have noticed it. You are also forgetting the fact that Paul was good news to Lechmere in at least one context - he provided a safe journey out.

"I’d much rather see all this research and unpublished material that people keep threatening to produce, than continued repetition of the current arguments than very few people are finding convincing."

Then congratulate yourself on getting to do so in days to come. Up til then, I reserve myself the right to counter whatever arguments I choose to.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Monty:

"I didn't realise you knew Cross so well."

I know, Monty!

You know? Spirit guides or are you older than you say?

"I factor in the reported facts. Fact is Cross approached Paul and called him to see Nichols, he drew attention to the whole scene and for no valid reason. He ran a massive risk which goes beyond reason and logic."

Ah, but you are wrong here, methinks! There was a VERY valid reason for approaching Paul - you see, Paul was part of his ticket out from Buck´s Row. He realized that tagging along with Paul would give him a sort of alibi. He knew that the police, on finding Nichols, would probably go looking for a human monster, a madman with a taste for cutting people up in the open street. What they would NOT go looking for was - for example - two carmen walking to job together. They had a reason for being in the streets, and their being in company made it very improbable that they were a pair of eviscerators.
Thus, Monty, there was a good and valid reason for Lechmere to appreciate Pauls company on that cold August morning! And THAT´S why I call him resourceful and coldblooded, and why I think that there is a fair chance that he did not mind playing games.

Methinks?

OK, let me try a radical view on you. He sees tarpaulin, crosses the road to have a look, notes it is a woman and fears for her life, is concerned and confused, notes another man coming along and thinks "I'll see what this chap has to say on the situation" and calls the chap over. He says he thinks she is dead, the other chap disagrees, citing her as a drunk. Not wanting to seem like he is over reacting he goes along with this other chap however they agree to tell the next PC who comes along, a compromise.

Again, you see cold blooded game playing, I see a man confused, concerned (to a degree) and willing to be led. There is nothing in his actions which support your assesment. There is in those actions and subsequent ones with regards my assessement.

"He ran a massive risk which goes beyond reason and logic."

To begin with, Monty, whoever it was that put a knife to Nichols´ belly, he sure as hell took a huge risk, right? There is no way we can look at the Ripper murders and find a solution where the killer did not risk his neck. The rewards of killing were great enough for him to do what he did, risks or no risks.

But we are talking Lechmere here, and the risks HE took, if he was the killer! And those risks, Monty, were greatly diminished - not increased! - by joining forces with Paul. A lone man, running like a rabbit, would risk far, far more than a carman in company with another carman, both being on the streets for valid reasons, walking casually together, and both giving their companion a sort of alibi.

Pure conjecture. There is nothing to support the above quoted passage. All we have is your opinion. No evidence of subsequent actions supporting such an idea.

Youve never met Cross, you havent provided any supporting evidence he was what you state he was, yet you are claiming this is indeed the course of events and that Cross was the killer.


As ever, it all hinges on the 'if' word.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty! You found time - good!

"You know? Spirit guides or are you older than you say?"

Nope; opportunity three: it was obvious. To be fair, I´ve got something up my sleeve that I very much suspect you are unaware of.

"Again, you see cold blooded game playing, I see a man confused, concerned (to a degree) and willing to be led."

What´s radical about that view? Well, perhaps the "willing to be led" bit. Why would a man willing to be led take command as they meet the PC (Mizen)? Would it not be to expect that Paul took the lead in such a case?

The interesting thing about the whole Lechmere bid is that there is always this ambiguity built in. Well, almost always at any rate. My hunch (yes!) is that Lechmere took full advantage of that.

"Pure conjecture. "

So is it to put another man - Jack - whom nobody saw in place, Monty. Since nobody saw him, I´d submit that he is MORE conjecture than a man that we know was there, and who acts in a way that lends itself admirably to an interpreation of guilt. That, at least , is how I see it.

"Youve never met Cross"

True - but only the fewest of us met Kosminski, Kelly and Tumblety, so I´m none too bothered about that.

"... you havent provided any supporting evidence he was what you state he was"

What I have provided is a number of instances where he acts oddly (like the propping up business, for example). Plus, what evidence is there for Kosminski, for Kelly, for Tumblety?
And - like I said - there is more to come.

"As ever, it all hinges on the 'if' word."

And so it will AFTER I have presented my whole case. I won´t present a watertight case, believe it or not. But it will make for a compelling case just the same!

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

It´s another thing altogether that I do not think that Lechmere was an ordinary man. I think he was very resourceful and pretty cold-bloodied - and quite possibly somewhat amused by playing games. Thus my remark to you.

You think Cross was these things? Well, I know for a fact Le Grand was all these things and have proven it, yet you're always right there to tell me it means nothing and he's a lame suspect. Something tells me that if you and not I had been the one to pluck Le Grand from the mothballs, there'd be as many Le Grand threads as Maybrick threads and you'd be telling us what a fact it is that he was the Ripper. Could it be that you just want a suspect to call your own? Of course, you're a little late with Cross. There was a guy, who's name skips me, who was writing up Cross as a suspect in a series of small articles for Ripperana way back in the day. Then another dude wrote a couple for Ripperologist. And before all that, there was yours truly posting that had the murders stopped after Nichols, Cross would have likely been arrested.


I really think you should adopt Robert Paul as your pet suspect. That would be original. Except, of course, you'd have to acknowledge me as your muse.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Tom,

I've bagged Paul already. Along with Henry Paul, Robbie Paul, Paul Daniels, Pau Begg, Paula Abdul and Mrs Fiddymont.

Its just a feeling I have.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"You think Cross was these things?"

If he was the killer, then undoubtedly yes.

"Well, I know for a fact Le Grand was all these things and have proven it, yet you're always right there to tell me it means nothing and he's a lame suspect."

So sorry, Tom! But lets break things down before I´m sentenced to hang, okay?

Many people are resourceful and coldblooded. If you think Le Grand was, then I won´t contradict you. You know more about him than I do, so I´ll take your word for it. The problem is, like I said, that such a thing would not single Le Grand out as one of very few contenders for the Ripper title.

The same goes for Lechmere - if he was truly resourceful and coldblooded, then that is not any way near enough to suggest him as the Ripper. Working from point zero, we don´t even know if the Ripper WAS resourceful and coldblooded, although his chosen killing venues seem to point to at least some sang-froid.

What does this mean? It means that if this is all we have on a man, then he makes for a lame suspect as the Ripper.

But we have more on Lechmere, as has been pointed out. We have him alone with a victim who - according to Paul - actually still twitched when he felt her chest. We have him giving the wrong name. We have him refusing to prop a woman, quite possibly in dire need of help, up. We have the pulled-down clothes. We have a free passage for him on the night, without any checking up by the police, meaning that he may have been allowed to carry the murder weapon away with him.

Those are all things that are very much thought-evoking. And once we see the implications, the time has come to see how he checks out with the ensuing murders. And lo and behold - they just happen to take place in spots where he had reason to pass every morning, and they ALSO take place at the approximate TIME when he would have done so. Moreover, the murder that deviated from this, actually is played out on a Saturday night en route to his mothers house. Meaning that we may easily couple that murder to Lechmere too.
It is nothing short of miraculous that we can do so, 124 years after the killing spree, but there you are.

So this is what happens when we check out how Lechmere relates to the other murder cases involved - he nails them, one by one. The poor sod was even so unlucky as to have his mother´s/daughter´s home situated the fewest of yards away from and exactly facing the very railway arch in which the Pinchin Street Torso was found - and much as most researchers regard that as unrelated to the Ripper murders, it remains that the torso had had it´s belly ripped open, and I seem to remember that Phillips spoke of at least some cutting that was reminiscent of the Ripper´s work, although he too opted for another killer in the end.

Quite an unlucky guy, would you not say, as lame suspects go?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Yep, Monty - when you can´t disprove it, make jokes about it instead!

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Yep, Monty - when you can´t disprove it, make jokes about it instead!

The best,
Fisherman

When you prove it Fish, then I'll be in a position to disprove it.

The best
Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"When you prove it Fish, then I'll be in a position to disprove it."

Actually, if you COULD disprove it, it would be because I could never prove it in the first place. Similarly, if I DID prove it, you´d be in no position to disprove it. But don´t worry, I won´t prove it - I will only make a very good case for it. And then you can joke about that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

But we have more on Lechmere, as has been pointed out … We have him refusing to prop a woman, quite possibly in dire need of help, up.

And that’s the central flaw in your hypothesis, Fish. Unlike Paul, the cold-blooded and cunning Cross refused to touch Nichols, despite the fact that this would have permitted him to explain away any bloodstaining to his hands or clothing in the event of a policeman happening upon the scene. Had he been the arch manipulator you would have us believe, he would have been only too happy to assist Paul in the repositioning of Nichols’ body. But he wasn’t. And that ought to be telling you something.