Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[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 can´t 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]

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]

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]

Stephen Thomas:

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

That´s 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 didn´t, 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

[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 ?

[Tom_Wescott]

Even today, if you read the evidence in a manner that points to guilt on Lechmere´s behalf, people are upset on his behalf and tell you that only perverted minds would do such a thing.
He remains the stand up citizen, a type of person that nobody wants as the Ripper.

That's not entirely true and you know it. We're not brainwashed simpletons, Fish. It's just a matter of there not being any 'evidence of guilt' to hang your hat on. Cross lived for years following the murders, did he not? What crimes is he known to have committed? And he had lived a long time prior to the Nichols murder, so in what cases did he emerge as a suspect? It doesn't even have to be murder, just show us that he was criminally bent or something and then I think you'll have more people's attention. As of yet I haven't seen any reason to suspect Cross any more than Robert Paul, who you apparently think is a 'stand up citizen'. At least in Paul's case we have evidence of a difficult witness who tried to separate himself from the affair early on, and who may not have been entirely consistent in his story.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garry Wroe]

Garry if there was a westward wind blowing the sound of Thanes boots over150 yards into Neil's ear'ole, then that same breeze would have carried Paul's footfall into Cross's flappers before he was a mere 40 yards away... surely?

Call me biased, but in this instance I´d have to agree, Garry ... Worn down soles or not!

My mistake, gentlemen. For some reason I’d misremembered the fact that Thain and Paul approached the crime scene from the same direction. The point I was trying to make, however, is that 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. The significance of this factor was clearly understood by MacDonald when responding to Mary Ann Cox at the Kelly inquest hearing:-

‘The man I saw [Blotchy] go in with deceased was about 36. There was no noise from his tread as he went up the court with deceased.’

‘So that his boots must have been dilapidated?’

‘I suppose so.’

So all things are not equal, and the condition of Paul’s boots would have affected the noise he made when making his way along Buck’s Row. As indeed would a number of other factors.

[caz]

Exactly, Hunter

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

I imagine that quite a lot of people are finding this discussion rather silly.

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.

Love,

Caz
X

PS I think that neatly addresses Ruby's point, which I only saw after posting.

[Rubyretro]

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

Surely if Cross had been spotted 'hurrying off' from a freshly murdered body, then it would have been tantamount to an admission of guilt ? Or at least have invited close investigation ?

This has been gone over before. It's just going round in circles. 'Brazening things out' is a choice that some people would make in the circumstances. Personally, I think that it would be the best option.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Fisherman

As has previously been pointed out, the doorways of Buck´s Row would have been too shallow to host any hoards of villains, so Paul did not need to worry about that. The only potential villain was the man in the middle of the road. And no matter WHY Paul was intimidated by him, we know that this took place.

The doorways and warehouse entances on the north side of Bucks row would not have been to shallow to hide a mugger or two?
Yes, hoards of villains may have been a little obvious but no-one is talking of hoards.

[Monty]

Exactly, Hunter

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

I imagine that quite a lot of people are finding this discussion rather silly.

Yep

Monty

[Stephen Thomas]

Cross had just come across a woman lying in the gateway. He was probably more concerned about what that meant than one individual casually walking toward him.

Paul saw someone standing in the street and not moving on. Put yourself in both situations and decide how you would react.

Exactly, Hunter

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

I imagine that quite a lot of people are finding this discussion rather silly.

[Fisherman]

Hunter:

"Cross had just come across a woman lying in the gateway. He was probably more concerned about what that meant than one individual casually walking toward him.

Paul saw someone standing in the street and not moving on. Put yourself in both situations and decide how you would react."

First off, I think it would be wrong to say that Paul was walking "casually" toward Lechmere. "I was hurrying along" is what he says himself, and we do know that he was late for work. So the man approaching Lechmere would have seemed quite intent, instead of casual. As an aside, this would also have meant that he did not move silently, so Lechmere would have heard him long before he was forty yards away, I think.

To proceed, it would seem that Lechmere wore a sacking apron when going to work, as shown by his attendance to the inquest. Therefore, Paul would quickly be able to make him out as a fellow working man. I am not saying that people with sacking aprons cannot be robbers, but the obvious bet would be that they are probably not.

As has previously been pointed out, the doorways of Buck´s Row would have been too shallow to host any hoards of villains, so Paul did not need to worry about that. The only potential villain was the man in the middle of the road. And no matter WHY Paul was intimidated by him, we know that this took place.

But just how logical would such an approach to robbing people be - standing in the middle of the street, waiting for someone to come along who you could rob? That someone could easily turn and run the other way, remember. And why would a robber dress up in a sacking apron? And if Paul felt that he was about to be robbed, then why did he stop short, immediately complying to Lechmere´s request to help him? When Lechmere reached out for him, why did Paul not run?

Almost all of the evidence surrounding Lechmere can be read in two ways, Hunter. Like his nameswop, his unwillingness to help prop Nichols up, his leaving the body behind, his strange tendency to have people getting themselves killed along his work route or on the road to his mother etcetera. And that was something he took full advantage of, I suspect. Even today, if you read the evidence in a manner that points to guilt on Lechmere´s behalf, people are upset on his behalf and tell you that only perverted minds would do such a thing.
He remains the stand up citizen, a type of person that nobody wants as the Ripper.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"You're biased."

Thanks, Tom - always ready to extend a helping hand!

The best,
Fisherman

[Hunter]

And Paul knew Buck's Row as a place frequented by ruffians and so walked around Cross to avoid him, not because Cross had an intimidating look about him per se (or so some think). Yet Cross wasn't worried that Paul might be a footpad sneaking up behind him just after he had spotted the prone form of a woman.
This tells us that Paul was jumpy even though he hadn't as yet seen the body but Cross wasn't flapping at all.
I find that interesting.

Cross had just come across a woman lying in the gateway. He was probably more concerned about what that meant than one individual casually walking toward him.

Paul saw someone standing in the street and not moving on. Put yourself in both situations and decide how you would react.