Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Garry Wroe]

Dear me, Garry - what ARE you talking about?

Oh, I think you know, Fish.

Propping Nichols up would have given away what had happened to her, and Lechmere would have been decidedly uninterested in such a thing, I dare say.

And you know this how? But in any case Paul suggested that they ‘shift’ the woman. No talk of propping her up. As for the movement of the body betraying the injuries that had been inflicted upon it, the cut throat was only discovered when PC Neil illuminated the scene with his lamp, and the abdominal mutilations went unrecognized until the body was stripped at the mortuary. So how would moving the body in almost total darkness have ‘given away what had happened to her’?

And he had taken care of the blood business already, by feeling her hands and face - that would have been enough to provide any explanation of blood on his hands.

It was Paul who touched the hands and face. Cross felt one of the hands only. And since there was little or no blood on Nichols’ hands, Cross would clearly have had some explaining to do had a significant quantity of blood been discovered on his hands and clothing.

So, to my original question, Fish. Why would Cross have been reluctant to touch Nichols when doing so would have been a cunning and convenient means of covering his involvement in the murder?

[Fisherman]

Simon:

"If we play by the Macnaghten rules, Cross as Nichols' murderer and, thus, Jack the Ripper looks shaky.

If Jack did one, he had to have done all five, so where is the evidence to suggest Cross murdered any of the others?"

The best we can do is the fact that the others were killed on or close to Lechmere´s route to work, or on the road leading to his mother´s house - and all of them were killed on times that roughly agrees with when Lechmere would/could have been there.

1.Nichols: directly on his work route.
2. Chapman: Five yards or so from his work route.
3. Stride: 300 yards from his mother´s house and quite possibly directly on his route from Cable Street to Doveton Street.
4. Kelly: 200 yards from Hanbury Street, his work route - if he did not find her at the interception Wentworth Street/Leman Street. She was known to work the latter street, and thus they may actually have met on Wentworth Street, which would have been Lechmere´s alternative route to Pickford´s, actually being somewhat quicker than Hanbury Street.
5. The Pinchin street torso was found about 30 meters from his mother´s house, in September 1889.
6. Martha Tabram was killed in George Yard buildings, some 30 meters away from Wentworth/Old Montague Street.

Victims 1, 2, 4 and 6 were found early in the morning, agreeing with Lechmere´s going to work, with Chapman as a possible exception, being found later.
Victim 3 was found on the night between a Saturday and a Sunday, when Lechmere very well could have been visting at his mother´s house.

All the best, Simon!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry:

" in any case Paul suggested that they ‘shift’ the woman. "

It is recorded in the inquest files that a "prop" was what was suggested. Have a look and you´ll see.

"how would moving the body in almost total darkness have ‘given away what had happened to her’?"

Her head was haning on by the spine only, so it would have dropped backwards on trying to lift her. Also, they would have suffered the same fate as Thain did, lifting her onto the ambulance: they would have gotten wet blood all over their hands. So it´s quite easy and straightforward, really.

"It was Paul who touched the hands and face. Cross felt one of the hands only."

It would have been enough for him to say that they had both handled the body. I don´t think that Paul´s first thought was to record every move Lechmere made. He would have been occupied with his own efforts.
But that said, you may wish to read the inquest files again, where it says:
" They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm."
... meaning, of course, that Lechmere touched both of her hands AND her face, just like I said.

" Why would Cross have been reluctant to touch Nichols when doing so would have been a cunning and convenient means of covering his involvement in the murder?"

Read the above, and you will understand.

The best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

All the very best to you as well.

Based on your surmises, ingenious as they are, methinks you've got an uphill task in trying to put a rope around Cross's neck.

But be of stout heart. Hands down, your theory sure beats Druitt, Kosminski and Tumblety.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

You're welcome, Ripperology: The new book by Tom Wescott

Aha. But how does that increase or decrease the possibility that I am right...? I´m not after any applause and being liked and appreciated and treated to the odd pint - I am after the Ripper. How about you, Tom?

I can't help being popular. It just comes with being me. But yes, I am after the Ripper. There's fewer of us than there used to be.

As for Le Grand, he's the only police suspect I can think of who showed up at murder sites right after the fact and coerced people to lie, even fabricating suspects. That's not proof of guilt, but I feel that fact alone places him way, way, way at the top of the heap. A crappy heap, I grant you, but still, my boy sits on top.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Simon:

"Based on your surmises, ingenious as they are, methinks you've got an uphill task in trying to put a rope around Cross's neck."

I will add to it, Simon, rest assured of that. And walking uphill gives you stamina ...

"But be of stout heart. Hands down, your theory sure beats Druitt, Kosminski and Tumblety."

It does.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"I can't help being popular. It just comes with being me. But yes, I am after the Ripper. There's fewer of us than there used to be."

Then being awkward, unpopular and bulldoggish may perhaps just come with being me ...? Good to hear that you´re after Jack, anyways. There is still time to catch him.

"As for Le Grand, he's the only police suspect I can think of who showed up at murder sites right after the fact and coerced people to lie, even fabricating suspects. That's not proof of guilt, but I feel that fact alone places him way, way, way at the top of the heap. A crappy heap, I grant you, but still, my boy sits on top."

I´m looking forward to hearing more about him, Tom. It should make for a great read!

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Her head was haning on by the spine only, so it would have dropped backwards on trying to lift her.

As would the head of any dead or unconscious person, Fish, cut throat or not.

Also, they would have suffered the same fate as Thain did, lifting her onto the ambulance: they would have gotten wet blood all over their hands. So it´s quite easy and straightforward, really.

But according to your scenario, Fish, Cross already had blood on his hands, so I fail to understand why he would have been reluctant to handle the body, especially if by doing so he could account for any bloodstaining he’d incurred whilst committing the murder.

But that said, you may wish to read the inquest files again, where it says:
" They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm."
... meaning, of course, that Lechmere touched both of her hands AND her face, just like I said.

My recollection is that it was Paul who touched the face and declared it warm, and Cross felt one of the hands which was cold to the touch. But no matter. Since there was little or no blood on Nichols’ face and hands, Cross could not have explained away blood on his own hands and clothing in the manner you have described. Perhaps he wasn’t as cunning and manipulative as you would have us believe. Or perhaps you are just plain wrong about him being a murderer.

Read the above, and you will understand.

I have, and I don’t. Sorry, Fish, but to my mind you have presented not one shred of evidence that might implicate Cross in the Ripper murders. And frankly, I doubt that you ever will.

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"As would the head of any dead or unconscious person, Fish, cut throat or not."

I think that we may both realize, Garry, that a head hanging on by the spine only will make for a different movement pattern than a head attached to the body by muscles, veins, skin ... When lifting somebody who has had the head all but cut off, the head will end up in a ninety degree angle to the axis of the body, and that is something you will notice. When propping such a person up, the head will drop down in a very dramatic fashion, and I think we may work from the assumption that the carmen would perhaps have used the palms of their hands to the side of her face, trying to bring her around, and that would have resulted in some amazement on their behalf, I dare say. They would also need to support her back - which was wet with blood. Things like these, Garry, would have given away what had happened to her - but you may of course disagree?

"But according to your scenario, Fish, Cross already had blood on his hands, so I fail to understand why he would have been reluctant to handle the body, especially if by doing so he could account for any bloodstaining he’d incurred whilst committing the murder."

Then I´ll repeat myself: According to my scenario, we DON`T KNOW whether Lechmere had blood on his hands or not. Moreover, according to my scenario, Lechmere WANTED to use Paul as corroboration that he had touched the body in the darkness, meaning that he could later say "The blood? That must have happened when I touched the body in the darkness". Finally, and also according to my scenario, Lechmere did NOT want it to be discovered that Nichols had been violently knifed to death, because that would potentially have Paul yelling for assistance from the police. And having a PC joining them, finding out that Lechmere had been alone with the body, would have been something he wanted to avoid, given that he would have had his knife stashed on him.
THAT is my scenario - and I should know it!

"My recollection is that it was Paul who touched the face and declared it warm, and Cross felt one of the hands which was cold to the touch. But no matter. Since there was little or no blood on Nichols’ face and hands, Cross could not have explained away blood on his own hands and clothing in the manner you have described."

No matter? It matters a lot. Your recollection was obviously gathered from the Times, who got this wrong. The Daily Telegraph clearly states that Lechmere touched BOTH hands AND the face, and this is corroborated by other sources. The Times also says that "shifting" her was what was suggested, but if you take a look in the Daily News, it states that "shifting" "in the witnesses´ opinion" meant "seating her upright". This is where a thorough search and understanding of the sources will take you.

And why is this important? Because, of course, Lechmere touched her head, and that head was hanging on to the body by the spine only. That meant that he could state afterwards that any blood on his hands could have ended up there at that stage. Moreover, Garry, it was pitch dark, and Paul would not have been able to state exactly how and where Lechmere touched her. Like I said, he would have been occupied by his own movements.

Therefore, Lechmere seemingly got things the way he wanted them - clear evidence that he could have gotten bloodied when examining the body, no thorough examination that would have given things away, and no propping her up. Lechmere effectively put a stop to that suggestion.
Have you asked yourself WHY he did so? If he wanted to help, then why claim that he "would not touch" a woman he had already touched? The anomaly is screamingly obvious here, and that should make us think. Any explanations, Garry?

"I have, and I don’t."

... but you do now, I hope?

" Sorry, Fish, but to my mind you have presented not one shred of evidence that might implicate Cross in the Ripper murders. And frankly, I doubt that you ever will."

I may disappoint you on that score.

The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

I hope you don't mind my butting in too much, Garry, but I have a couple of remarks for Fish .

Finally, and also according to my scenario, Lechmere did NOT want it to be discovered that Nichols had been violently knifed to death, because that would potentially have Paul yelling for assistance from the police. And having a PC joining them, finding out that Lechmere had been alone with the body, would have been something he wanted to avoid, given that he would have had his knife stashed on him.

Why would he have needed to stash the knife on his person,Christer (how have you been, btw?). If he was cool-headed enough to come up with the idea of getting out of this situation by waiting for Paul to accompany him out of the situation, and, as you suggest, to clean his hands on Nichols’ clothes, then why not get rid of the knife? Without any problem, he could have tossed it over the stable walls, next to Essex Wharf or wherever. In the scenario you have in mind, he actually even needed to get rid of it.

Then, if Cross was Nichols' murderer, it seems that he was quite well at playing the role of the innocent witness who just happened to stumble upon her dead body. So, with no knife on his person, why couldn't he have played that role in case Paul did find out what really happened to Nichols?

Moreover, Garry, it was pitch dark, and Paul would not have been able to state exactly how and where Lechmere touched her. Like I said, he would have been occupied by his own movements.

You’re quite right. Paul wouldn’t have been able to state exactly how and where Cross had touched Nichols, unless he shifted the body together with Paul. That would be the only way in which he needed to firmly grasp the body, with every chance of getting blood on him, which Paul was sure to remember. From that viewpoint, it would be wise to shift the body as Paul suggested. That he didn’t want to, can very well be explained by the fact that he thought she didn't need help and that he late as it was.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Hi Frank! Good to have you chiming in!

I have some answers for you:

"Why would he have needed to stash the knife on his person,Christer (how have you been, btw?). If he was cool-headed enough to come up with the idea of getting out of this situation by waiting for Paul to accompany him out of the situation, and, as you suggest, to clean his hands on Nichols’ clothes, then why not get rid of the knife? Without any problem, he could have tossed it over the stable walls, next to Essex Wharf or wherever. In the scenario you have in mind, he actually even needed to get rid of it."

The grounds were searched, of course. And no weapon found. Which means that we must work from the premise that he stashed it on his person, if he was the killer.
Also, a knife thrown over a fence, landing on the ground on the other side will produce a distinct sound when landing, iron on stone; CLANG! On a silent night, that would not have gone unnoticed.


I must also clarify myself somewhat here, I feel! Yes, I do think he came to the conclusion that Paul was very useful company - but there must have been a period of time between his noticing Paul and the decision to use his company. How long that period was, is hard to say. It may well have been that his first move was to simply try and find out how much Paul had seen.
The time span given from his noticing Paul is of importance; it would have governed much of his decisions I feel. All in all, though, there is an obvious possibility that he only realized the use he could put Paul to AFTER the latter had arrived at the scene of the crime. But it could have come about earlier too. To me, the fact that Paul was intimidated by Lechmere, governs my thinking - I tend to think that the decision came after Pauls arrival outside Browns Stable Yard. Lechmere would have improvised his way out of things, the way I see it.

"Then, if Cross was Nichols' murderer, it seems that he was quite well at playing the role of the innocent witness who just happened to stumble upon her dead body. So, with no knife on his person, why couldn't he have played that role in case Paul did find out what really happened to Nichols? "

With no knife, that would have been a good idea. But I don´t think he ever got any good chance to rid himself of it - and I think the search made it very clear he never did.

"You’re quite right. Paul wouldn’t have been able to state exactly how and where Cross had touched Nichols, unless he shifted the body together with Paul. That would be the only way in which he needed to firmly grasp the body, with every chance of getting blood on him, which Paul was sure to remember. From that viewpoint, it would be wise to shift the body as Paul suggested."

But just like I´ve said before, finding out that she had been brutally assaulted and knifed, having had her head almost cut off, would have produced another reaction altogether with Paul. He may well have raised hell to get a PC in place. And that would have been why Lechmere NEEDED to produce a situation in which he would come in close enough contact with the body to explain any blood, whereas he would absolutely NOT want it revealed that Nichols had been killed. The only way in which to accomplish this would be to create a situation where he got to feel the body, but where no actions were taken that revealed the true reason for why Nichols lay on the ground. Therefore, he put an effective end to Pauls suggestion of a propping up - which would have been the only reasonable thing to do, try to get her in an upright position and bring her around - but no, the benevolent Lechmere, eager to help a woman in distress, had suddenly changed his tune at that stage. Guess why!

The very superficial examination of Nichols provided Lechmere with BOTH an excuse for any blood AND a possibility to leave the body and walk casually away together with another carman; the perfect way out of trouble, as it were.

"That he didn’t want to, can very well be explained by the fact that he thought she didn't need help and that he late as it was."

Exactly. It would have been of essence to him that this picture remained a viable one. And this is how he plays his cards all along; all the different elements - or almost all of them - can be interpreted in two ways. If he could disguise the knowledge that Nichols was dead by his own hand and that he needed to get out of there, then what better way to do it than to create a picture of no knowledge about the necessity to help the woman, and a need to get to work, for which he was already late by his own admission.
And still, Frank, he opts for the SLOWER Hanbury Street instead of making up a minute or three by using Old Montague Street! Late, eh?

Not the best of choices, was it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I am working from the assumption that he was clever enough to use Paul as a ticket out.

That wasn't "clever", though. Clever is realising he didn't need a "ticket" at all. Departing unseen before anyone knew that anyone else had been murdered entailed irrefutably less risk that approaching a policeman post-crime with the murder weapon still in his pocket, especially as the latter was guaranteed to lead to further exposure involving inquest attendance etc.

Converse All-Stars, I take it...?

No, just policeman's boots as opposed to less noisy shoes worn by carmen.

Take a look at what the man had fled from and alert the police. Why risk that if you did not have to?

What - from Brady Street? You cannot be serious. You're suggesting that Paul was in a position to register what was going on from the moment he turned onto Buck's Row? Help! Police! Man walking away in the distance from female dead body! Call the cavalry! It is quite clear that both carmen were only able to register Nichols' form at relatively close quarters. You even suggest that Paul was in a position to "give a description of the man" all the way from Brady Street! I'm afraid these proposals are becoming more and more obviously outlandish, if not impossible.

Let´s just say that we DO know that Lechmere would have passed through the very area where the bodies were found

He passed through the general area, yes. That's not "nailing them one by one" is it? Others actually lived there already.

Tabram - no evidence that he ever took, let alone was in the habit of taking, the Old Montague Street to work. Thus no evidence that he passed George Yard.

Chapman - en route the work, but committed too late to have realistically been committed by Cross or any other suspect due at work considerably earlier.

Stride - not relevant if not a ripper victim, and you don't believe she was. Not much sense then in citing a Berner Street connection in your case against Cross being the ripper.

Eddowes - see Tabram.

Kelly - see Chapman.

Pinchin Street Torso - see Stride.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hi Ben!

"That wasn't "clever", though. Clever is realising he didn't need a "ticket" at all. Departing unseen before anyone knew that anyone else had been murdered entailed irrefutably less risk that approaching a policeman post-crime with the murder weapon still in his pocket, especially as the latter was guaranteed to lead to further exposure involving inquest attendance etc."

There´s that "irrefutably" again, that you are so fond of using. And you know what: you are right. If there had been a good opportunity to leave the scene undetected, that would have been the best way to do it.

... which is why I think that opportunity was not there. Paul would have been close enough to notice if anybody left the street, and Lechmere would have decided that running for it involved more risks than not charading his way out.
But I have a feeling that I have said all this before, and that you have made YOUR point before...?

"No, just policeman's boots as opposed to less noisy shoes worn by carmen."

Oh - the famed Silent Carmen Shoes? Could you tell me how large the sound difference was? Or are you just guessing that carmen wore more silent shoes than policemen? Which is it?
I know that it has been sometimes stated that police boots were decidedly unsilent footwear, but I must have missed the "Noisy carmen shoes-thread"!

"What - from Brady Street? "

Did I say that? Can´t remember that I did. What I said was that Paul would take a look at what the man fled from, did I not? And to do so, he would need to come close to the body. I also said that even if Lechmere had had the time to pass for example Mizen before the hunt was on, had he chosen Hanbury Street, then Mizen would be able to say that yes, there was this carman that ran past me, etcetera. They would have a description, and quite possibly a good description too. Moreover, since Lechmere used the way frequently, walking to job, there was the chance that somebody - like a PC on his beat - would actually recognize him.

That was what I said, Ben, was it not - I did not suggest any sighting from Brady Street, as you propose. Why did you do that?

Nor did I suggest that Paul would be able to describe Lechmere "all the way from Brady Street", did I? Please produce the passage where I did. The result should be revealing!

I have in fact not even said that Paul would have seen Lechmere from Brady Street, have I? What I have said is that LECHMERE could POTENTIALLY see Paul when he walked into Buck´s Row from Brady Street, since there was a lamp at that end.

Do you find that "outlandish" too?

Let´s be honest, Ben, and not claim things on our opponent´s behalf that is not true, calling it "outlandish". Fair is fair. Which is why I ask very politely if you think you could extend me the favour of not misrepresenting what I write.

"He passed through the general area, yes. That's not "nailing them one by one" is it? "

It is, in fact, in the respect that we CAN tie the murder places to very feasible movement patterns of Lechmere. Both you and I know that the only time that we can put him in place both geographically and timewise is the Nichols murder. In the other cases, he may have been in Africa when they occured. But that does not in any way detract from the fact that there is every reason to suggest that he normally DID move along streets that took him past the murder places at the approximate hours that the Ripper victims were killed. That makes him a very useful bid for each of the killings I have mentioned.

Putting it otherwise: If we work from the assumption that he actually used the nearest route to his work at times - and that is a very reasonable assumption to make, and if we make the equally reasonable assumption that he sometimes visited his mother and daughter on weekends, then we do have him very close to the murder sites. It is no stranger than that. If he was in Africa, though ...

You are correct, by the way, that Stride is not relevant if she was not a Ripper victim. I don´t see anybody refuting this. Actually, the same goes for all of the women in the series - if they were not Ripper victims, then they are not relevant to the case. So I see no use in bringing that up.

The best,

Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Sounds like Fish is pulling a Stewart Evans where Stride is concerned. Evans had spent a good part of his book building an argument that Tumblety lived on Batty Street and only yards from where Stride's body was discovered. Good stuff until he likewise informs his reader that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim. It didn't make sense then and doesn't now (of course, we now know there was no Batty Street lodger, but I digress). Looks like Fish is building this big argument that Cross was near Berner Street for benefit of the 80% of us who DO think Stride was a Ripper victim, while winking at his delinquent 20% and still flying the 'Stride was a one-off!' flag.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Hi Tom!

If you are that curious, why not just ask me? I mean, there is of course the odd chance that you may pinpoint all I think by guessing away, but the risk that you get things wrong is very much bigger.

Look at Ben; he now claims that I have said that Robert Paul on turning into Buck´s Row from Brady Street was able to see what Lechmere did down at Browns Stable Yard. I have of course never said anything like it, since that would have been ridiculous. But that didn´t stop Ben - he claims that this is so, and he calls it "outlandish". And that´s where you normally end up when you do not ask properly.So let´s get this straight, shall we, before you do something along the same lines, Tom!

Here is what you guess:

" Looks like Fish is building this big argument that Cross was near Berner Street for benefit of the 80% of us who DO think Stride was a Ripper victim, while winking at his delinquent 20% and still flying the 'Stride was a one-off!' flag."

Here´s the thing, Tom:

1. I have never stated that Stride MUST have been somebody else´s than the Ripper. Those who have stated things boldly here have been the likes of you, who have claimed that it is beyond comprehension not to accept that Stride WAS the Rippers. To you, the Stride case has always been a done deal, right?
This is why I have always argued - and will keep arguing - that the crime scene evidence as well as the surrounding circumstances tells us that this particular murder deviates from the other ones in a way that opens up a very clear possibility that Stride was killed by somebody else than the Ripper.

2. I have always stated that although the evidence very much allows for another killer than the Ripper, we cannot exclude the possibility that it was him. Once again, the ones who have been adamant are the ones who have spoken in favour of a Ripper deed, since they have been pretty sure that there was never any need to suggest anybody but the Ripper in Stride´s case.

3. The practical outcome of all this is that if I had been asked if I would have voted for the A/ Ripper or B/ Somebody else as the more probable killer of Stride, I would have voted B.

4. After that, I have come to believe that Charles Lechmere is the best bid we have for the Ripper, and that acceptance on my behalf has been governed to some extent by the find that his mother lived on an adress to which Berner Street provided a thoroughfare. Until this was known, we could only place Lechmere (roughly) at three of the murder sites, but after it, we suddenly knew that we could couple him to the Berner Street area, and we found a very useful explanation as to why Stride died on a Saturday night, if Lechmere was the killer.
Moreover, we could see that the Pinchin Street dumping place was situated a stones-throw away from where his mother resided.

It became apparent that if Lechmere was not the killer, then he was at the very least a guy along who´s working route and visiting route to his mother´s home, somebody took great joy in murdering and dumping bodies.

I don´t know how aquainted you are with modern policing, Tom, but I feel pretty certain that you know that patterns like these are the exact thing they go looking for when trying to capture a serial killer: Does any of our suspects´patterns of movement fit with what we´ve got in terms of assault, murder and dumping spots? Since they have taken place in streets A, B, C ,D and E, do we have any suspect who is known to have been moving along these particular streets at the particular hours when the assaults, murders and dumpings took place?

And every now and then, they are able to turn up somebody who corresponds very well or even exactly with these points of interest, as I´m sure you are aware. Moreover - and this is where we return to me and Stride - when they find their man and haul him in, they sometimes get themselves a confession that involves MORE murders than the ones they believed would have been connected. They discover that a deed that has held elements that have seemingly told it apart from the other deeds in the series, actually belongs to the series just the same, and they are more often than not informed about the reasons for the deviations.

We will not be afforded such a luxury in the Stride case. The explanations to the deviations in that case will remain hidden to us. But we need to take on board the fact that the murder itself tallies very well with the pattern of movements that offers itself up when researching Lechmere.

Actually, the Pinchins Street torso is another branch on the same tree: It was said at the time that it differed so much from the Ripper killings that it most probably did not belong to that score. But since it was discovered perhaps thirty yards away from a place that Lechmere would have frequented often, we MUST weigh in the possibility that he was the perpetrator. And we do know that the belly of the victim had been ripped open, just as we have it on record that Phillips saw a close relation inbetween the way some of the cutting was done. There was also a time gap of nearly a year to weigh in, during which time the interests of the killer could easily have changed.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that has not resulted in any indignant outcries about how I have always said that the Pinchin Street torso would not have been Jacks, is that I have never said anything at all about it. But let me assure you that IF I had done so before I got to know Lechmere better, I would most certainly have said that I did not believe it to be a deed done by the Ripper. So if you want to have a crack at me in retrospect for that one too, then feel free!

Myself, I think that it is of much greater importance to come to terms with what all of this means in the context of researching Charles Lechmere. I would much rather discuss that, then go down the useless alley of my having spoken up for the possibility that Stride was not the Ripper´s. That won´t lead anybody anywhere when it comes to finding the Ripper, will it?

So the next time you are contemplating what I think and why - just ask me!

All the best, Tom!

Fisherman