Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Fisherman]

Hi Ben!

Since you are so anxious to have only your own thinking published, while you recommend me not to post any more, I will satisfy you to some extent by only bringing one point up.

I canīt resist this gem:

"Had he been spotted and recognised fleeing from the second crime, having cemented his false role as innocent body-discoverer at the first, he’d have been in far more serious trouble than he would have been if seen walking along Hanbury Street shortly after the Nichols murder before the discovery of the body."

If he had been spotted and recognized, Ben, what would it matter if it was the second, the third or the umpteenth murder? And what would it matter if it was one, two or umpteen weeks down the line?

Iīm struggling with that one, I have to say.

But letīs not let our disagreements come in the way of the progress of the thread! It would add fuel to Tomīs suggestion: "Is it possible some here are arguing more against the theorist than the theory?", and none of us would want that, would we?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

"If they met on Whitechapel Road i find it rather improbable that the cunning street smart killer would let her lead him to Bucks row which was his daily walk to work..." ... "... On the other hand, he may have known, since he traveled Bucks row on a daily basis,sometimes a little earlier, sometimes a little later that perhaps during this time frame he seldom or never encountered anyone else (or a PC) so he knew it was safe?"

He potentially killed in Buckīs Row, in Mitre Square and in Berner Street, Abby, all places that were patrolled by PC:s on the beat. It was therefore of great weight to him that he took advantage of the pockets of time that offered themselves to him.
We know that he was familiar with Buckīs Row, and there is good reason to believe that the same applied to Berner Street. In them cases, he could well have known the exact beats of the policemen walking them. But in the Mitre Square case, it can be suggested that the Eddowes strike was not a premeditated one, but instead a strike that followed on a botched killing/mutilation of another victim - Stride.

And if this is true, and if he did not know the beats of the PC:s close to Mitre Square, then why choose a spot where a PC could arrive any second? Well, there is of course the possibility that he took advantage of the knowledge of the prostitutes - they would professionally have good reason to keep track of the PC beats adjoining their servicing areas, right? And maybe this is exactly what he did in all cases - hooked up with a prostitute that knew at what time a certain area could be used for business. And maybe that was what lead him to Buckīs Row in Nicholsīcompany, unless he was already familiar with the PC beat himself.

The window of time that was open for him to kill would not have been too big. Therefore, I would suggest that he looked for prey in the more common hunting grounds; large, more heavily frequented streets walked by prostitutes, and then let the women lead him to safe areas at safe hours.

"... you can do much much worse and i find this thread fascinating."

Thanks, Abby. Yes, you can do far worse. But in terms of making the dots connect, you actually can do no better ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Abby

What we would be dealing with is a risk taker who has a compulsion to kill. I would presume he also committed the Martha Tabram murder and ever since then he would have been psyching himself up for the next attack.
He would be comfortable in Bucks Row because of its very familiarity. If led there and if he felt he could get away with it, then he would just do it, rather as a fox will kill every chicken in the hen house if it gets inside.
If Cross had been sighted in a more compromising situation than he actually was (by Paul) – spotted leaving 29 Hanbury Street for example - then he had other options to use for his route to work. He could have varied it. The person who spotted him would hardly have known who he was. He would merely have to use a different route.
Of course he would want to avoid having to do that – hence as he felt he had ‘got away with it’ he would have been comfortable about presenting himself at a police station and making a statement and appearing at the inquest.
The possibility of being caught is unlikely to have inhibited him – it seldom does in such cases. Pulling the wool over the eyes of the police in the Nichols enquiry will probably have given him a sense of empowerment.

Cross’s quickest route was down Old Montague Street and I have no doubt he would have used this route usually. Carmen would know the quickest route from A to B. I have seen an extraordinary claim that Old Montague Street was notoriously dangerous and so Cross would have avoided it. We know from testimony that Bucks Row was dangerous and he clearly didn’t avoid that thoroughfare. And was Hanbury Street safe in comparison to Old Montague Street? I don’t think so.

• I suspect that when he wanted to find a victim, he would usually use Whitechapel Road – Whitechapel High Street.
• If he wanted to get to work quickly (as would normally be the case) the Old Montague Street and Wentworth Street route.
• If he needed to take a different route there was Hanbury Street.
• If he needed to avoid the killing ground altogether a slightly longer route would take him along the road that ran on the northern edge of the railway line past Bethnal Green overground station (I haven’t got my old maps with me but the roads are now called Dunbridge Street and Cheshire Street).
• There are still other potential east-west routes that could be taken to get Cross to Pickford’s at Broad Street.

On the issue of the culprit suggesting to the prostitute that they go somewhere else, I am afraid it doesn’t work like that.
In any case when they hypothetically met on Whitechapel Road, Polly will not have said:
“Hello Mister, I’m going to take you to Bucks Row”.
She will have led him around the corner and they would have ended up in Bucks Row. If he didn’t like it there and then he would have aborted and I have no doubt that on occasion this is what happened.

There are valid theories that the Ripper would be likely to be found to live in the epicentre of the crimes- based on the distribution of the bodies. This sort of profiling – which is based on an examination of many actually cases, is based exactly on the knowledge that serial killers very often do ‘XXXX on their own doorstep’. This is because their doorstep is a comfort zone and the culprit feels more confident and is relaxed in familiar surroundings – they know the street lay out better and so forth. Many criminals – not just serial killers – operate on this basis.
The case against Cross is partly based on this sort of profiling but the distribution is linear rather than radiating out from the centre. This is because Cross had two centres of gravity that he operated between – his work and his home. His hinterland was the area between – where the bodies of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Kelly and Mackenzie were found.
Actually with Cross it was more complex than that as he also had his recent previous house and his almost adjacent mother’s residence, and his recent previous route to work – which accounts for Stride, Eddowes and possibly the Pinchin Street torso.

This line of thinking is used to promote the case of various Ripper suspects, where the case is based at least partially on where the suspect lived.
This places nearly all the crime scenes close to the potential culprit’s home, which would have made his discovery that more likely, as logically he would be recognised by more people near where he lived than further afield.
If we take the example of Hutchinson – this would make Tabram and Mackenzie very problematic. It makes writing the graffiti very risky (and so I presume would have to be denied as the work of the Ripper) and leaving the apron in that location – a long stone’s throw from his lodging house - an act of supreme recklessness. The Kelly murder is uncomfortably close as is that of Chapman.
Using the same standard of judgement, Hutchinson would have to have been extremely reckless.

However I would not use that line of reasoning against Hutchinson as it is common for serial killers to ‘XXXX on their own doorstep’ and to take great risks.

It is my opinion that whoever he was, the Ripper was a risk taker, yet was also a quick thinker. Cunning and street smart yes, but that does not contradict his potential propensity to take great risks. It is a common place to say that every murder scene had great risks associated with it – for the murderer. In my opinion that was essentially an occupational hazard. I believe we are looking for a killer who’s only opportunity to kill forced the taking of these risks on them. This incidentally would be the same for a culprit such as Hutchinson, Fleming, Mann, Barnett and Kosminsky. There are those that think Kosminsky was recognised of course, although an overtly mad killer (which is what Kosminsky would be had it been him) would probably be more likely to run amok and kill in broad day light. That would go for Isenschmid as well.

[Rubyretro]

What we would be dealing with is a risk taker who has a compulsion to kill. I would presume he also committed the Martha Tabram murder and ever since then he would have been psyching himself up for the next attack.

I agree.

He would be comfortable in Bucks Row because of its very familiarity. If led there and if he felt he could get away with it, then he would just do it, rather as a fox will kill every chicken in the hen house if it gets inside

.
I don't like the analogy. A fox goes quite mad in a hen house and capitulates to pure instinct in a crazy murderous spree but the Ripper kept his wits about him.

If you think that Cross was the killer, but could stop and think out the situation when Paul approached, then Cross was hardly like "a fox in a hen house", he was one cool character.

As it happens, I think that the Ripper WAS a cool character, always aware of police beats, approaching danger, and prepared to brazen things out from self preservation, and with a sharp brain at his disposal.

If Cross had been sighted in a more compromising situation than he actually was (by Paul) – spotted leaving 29 Hanbury Street for example - then he had other options to use for his route to work. He could have varied it. The person who spotted him would hardly have known who he was. He would merely have to use a different route.

I feel certain that people going to regular work at a regular time in the morning, when there were not hoards of people at large, would recognise other people by sight even if they were not acknowledged (and isn't it very usual to wish strangers 'Good Morning', even if you don't 'know' them ? If you've glanced into their face a few times ? I would. It's English politeness to recognise people as individuals and greet them). Cross could certainly never bank on being unrecognised by anybody that he crossed in those near empty streets at those times in the morning.

Cross spotted in Hanbury Street, next to a murder scene, could not ever have just 'imagined' that nobody would be able to describe him. I think that he would rather have an heightened awareness of the danger that he was in, after having 'discovered ' the body in Bucks Row.

You see - this is the major problem that I have with Cross as JTR, as opposed to Hutchinson...

Hutch wasn't in regular employment, thus did not take the same roads and pass the same people at the same times as Cross did..

Hutch wasn't linked as a witness to any previous murders, and could pass as anonymous in Hanbury street (or if not 'anonymous' , at least unassociated to any deaths), as Cross couldn't..

–

hence as he felt he had ‘got away with it’ he would have been comfortable about presenting himself at a police station and making a statement and appearing at the inquest.
The possibility of being caught is unlikely to have inhibited him – it seldom does in such cases. Pulling the wool over the eyes of the police in the Nichols enquiry will probably have given him a sense of empowerment.

Yes.

That was always my argument for Hutch. That is what Serial Killers often do -but you argued against it when it suited you.

• I suspect that when he wanted to find a victim, he would usually use Whitechapel Road – Whitechapel High Street.

That could be could for both Cross and Hutch..

• If he wanted to get to work quickly (as would normally be the case) the Old Montague Street and Wentworth Street route.
• If he needed to take a different route there was Hanbury Street.
• If he needed to avoid the killing ground altogether a slightly longer route would take him along the road that ran on the northern edge of the railway line past Bethnal Green overground station (I haven’t got my old maps with me but the roads are now called Dunbridge Street and Cheshire Street).
• There are still other potential east-west routes that could be taken to get Cross to Pickford’s at Broad Street.

Perfectly true.

On the issue of the culprit suggesting to the prostitute that they go somewhere else, I am afraid it doesn’t work like that.

Really ? Do you know ? How ?

Aren't they just two human beings that try and find a mutually satisfactory solution ? So wouldn't either of them be open to suggestion ? (one with money and one with experience with which to deal..and if the bloke had both the money and the experience, and a physical strength, and a 'silver tongue' to boot, well I think that Polly would just follow him, myself..).

In any case when they hypothetically met on Whitechapel Road, Polly will not have said:
“Hello Mister, I’m going to take you to Bucks Row”.
She will have led him around the corner and they would have ended up in Bucks Row. If he didn’t like it there and then he would have aborted and I have no doubt that on occasion this is what happened.

No doubt true. If he had had a better idea though, I bet that he would have said and she'd have gone..

There are valid theories that the Ripper would be likely to be found to live in the epicentre of the crimes- based on the distribution of the bodies. This sort of profiling – which is based on an examination of many actually cases, is based exactly on the knowledge that serial killers very often do ‘XXXX on their own doorstep’. This is because their doorstep is a comfort zone and the culprit feels more confident and is relaxed in familiar surroundings – they know the street lay out better and so forth. Many criminals – not just serial killers – operate on this basis.

True, I'm sure.

The case against Cross is partly based on this sort of profiling but the distribution is linear rather than radiating out from the centre. This is because Cross had two centres of gravity that he operated between – his work and his home. His hinterland was the area between – where the bodies of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Kelly and Mackenzie were found.
Actually with Cross it was more complex than that as he also had his recent previous house and his almost adjacent mother’s residence, and his recent previous route to work – which accounts for Stride, Eddowes and possibly the Pinchin Street torso.

I won't argue with that. I think that Cross is a valid suspect.

This line of thinking is used to promote the case of various Ripper suspects, where the case is based at least partially on where the suspect lived.
This places nearly all the crime scenes close to the potential culprit’s home, which would have made his discovery that more likely, as logically he would be recognised by more people near where he lived than further afield.

Obviously.

If we take the example of Hutchinson – this would make Tabram and Mackenzie very problematic. It makes writing the graffiti very risky (and so I presume would have to be denied as the work of the Ripper)

I don't think that the Ripper wrote that graffito at all -it's true.

and leaving the apron in that location – a long stone’s throw from his lodging house - an act of supreme recklessness.

Chuck it onto the floor quick ? Must take a second

Increasing daring ? A sense of power ? Flirting with danger ? Euphoria after the Double Event 'success' ?

Kelly murder is uncomfortably close as is that of Chapman.
Using the same standard of judgement, Hutchinson would have to have been extremely reckless.

Ditto above.

Vanity ? Showing off for the Press as well, added in ? Goading ?

However I would not use that line of reasoning against Hutchinson as it is common for serial killers to ‘XXXX on their own doorstep’ and to take great risks.

You reassure me.

It is my opinion that whoever he was, the Ripper was a risk taker, yet was also a quick thinker.

Not a fox then. We agree.

Cunning and street smart yes, but that does not contradict his potential propensity to take great risks. It is a common place to say that every murder scene had great risks associated with it – for the murderer. In my opinion that was essentially an occupational hazard. I believe we are looking for a killer who’s only opportunity to kill forced the taking of these risks on them.

Totally.

This incidentally would be the same for a culprit such as Hutchinson, Fleming, Mann, Barnett and Kosminsky. There are those that think Kosminsky was recognised of course, although an overtly mad killer (which is what Kosminsky would be had it been him) would probably be more likely to run amok and kill in broad day light. That would go for Isenschmid as well.

To my mind, the only one in that list worth bothering about is Hutch. And he wasn't Fleming.

(I feel quite protective of Joe Barnett..poor bloke...how could you include him in your list ?..)

[Mrs. Fiddymont]

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

Okay, Monty, you got me.

I confess--I am your man Jack--cleverly disguised, of course, as an American woman living in the 21st century. After all these years I thought I had outwitted everyone but alas, I shall now be tracked down to my lair....

Sincerely yours, Boss,
Jill the Ripper

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fiddymont. Don't laugh quite yet. With books coming out naming the wives of non-starter suspects as the Ripper, and the guy who shot John Wilkes Booth, you could very well be the next one named!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

Ah Madam Retro

Ok the fox in hen house analogy isn’t great – I meant to convey that when he was with his victim, immediately before striking, his base instincts would very likely have taken over from his calculating brain. This state would persist while he perpetrated the murder. This also explains why he allowed Paul to get so close – as he was absorbed in his task. (I suspect he realised Paul was there at 100 yards – not 40).

I doubt if there was much ‘good morning’ greeting in that part of London, where the population was cosmopolitan and very transitory. From testimony it seems the streets were dark and very deserted.
As I indicated – I very much doubt that Hanbury Street was his regular route and I suspect he (or any other suspect) usually picked up is victims on the main thorough fares – Whitechapel Road- Whitechapel High Street, Aldgate High Street – Commercial Street – which were more anonymous. This anonymity would have helped whoever was the culprit of course.

Yes I have often argued against the likelihood that Hutchinson (if he were the culprit) would have gratuitously inserted himself in the case when he had no need to – and then he gave press interviews as well. Cross was somewhat forced into the case by his discovery by Paul and then their bumping into Mizen. Whereas Hutchinson became a publicity seeker. I don’t buy the idea that he discovered the nature of Lewis’s testimony nor do I think he was identical with Lewis’s wide-awake man – as that connection was made by precisely no one at the time.

The sense of empowerment argument also doesn’t work for Hutchinson as most claim he stopped after Kelly. For Hutchinson there are difficulties in claiming he continued with Mackenzie and so on – his publicity seeking seems to suggest this for a start.

On prostitute client etiquette – all I can say is I have made enquiries.
The fundamental reason for the prostitute choosing the location is that the prostitute will always want to feel in control of that aspect. They wouldn’t go to the man’s chosen location as they might walk into an ambush where they would be robbed or attacked or whatever. Obviously they could be attacked in their chosen location (as seems to have happened in this instance) but it is a case of minimising risk. Sweet talking doesn’t really work with prostitutes.

I included Barnett as he was a local who some people regard as a suspect. I don’t regard any on that list as very viable – Hutchinson and Kosminsky are the best though but flawed for different reasons.

[Lechmere]

Where in the world did I find this frieze sculpture of the no 1 Ripper suspect going about his work...

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Lechmere;221297]Ah Madam Retro

Ok the fox in hen house analogy isn’t great –

Thank you.

From testimony it seems the streets were dark and very deserted.
As I indicated

The lonlier a place is, and the fewer people, then all the more likelier to pay attention to individuals.

I would say that an increased sense of fear due to the dark, and a feeling of vulnerability and isolation, would make one more subtly attentive to passing people.

– I very much doubt that Hanbury Street was his regular route and I suspect he (or any other suspect) usually picked up is victims on the main thorough fares – Whitechapel Road- Whitechapel High Street, Aldgate High Street – Commercial Street – which were more anonymous. This anonymity would have helped whoever was the culprit of course.

True, I 's'pose

Yes I have often argued against the likelihood that Hutchinson (if he were the culprit) would have gratuitously inserted himself in the case when he had no need to – and then he gave press interviews as well.

Serial killers do have a sense of invulnerability, power, and of being cleverer than the establishment though...

Cross was somewhat forced into the case by his discovery by Paul and then their bumping into Mizen. Whereas Hutchinson became a publicity seeker. I don’t buy the idea that he discovered the nature of Lewis’s testimony nor do I think he was identical with Lewis’s wide-awake man – as that connection was made by precisely no one at the time.

I do buy it.

The sense of empowerment argument also doesn’t work for Hutchinson as most claim he stopped after Kelly. For Hutchinson there are difficulties in claiming he continued with Mackenzie and so on – his publicity seeking seems to suggest this for a start.

Excellent arguement for Mackenzie. ??? No clear answer. The torsos fit better (changing MO due to lots of reasons).

On prostitute client etiquette – all I can say is I have made enquiries.

Fascinated. Please elucidate.

The fundamental reason for the prostitute choosing the location is that the prostitute will always want to feel in control of that aspect. They wouldn’t go to the man’s chosen location as they might walk into an ambush where they would be robbed or attacked or whatever. Obviously they could be attacked in their chosen location (as seems to have happened in this instance) but it is a case of minimising risk.

The bottom line is, one was desperate and pissed, and the other held the money and thus immediate escape route to pressing problems.

I feel that if the bloke was confidence inspiring enough (and this was at the beginning of the series of murders, don't forget), , then his persuasive arguments were always going to win.

Sweet talking doesn’t really work with prostitutes.

Hmmmn...I think that they are human beings and women like any others.

I included Barnett as he was a local who some people regard as a suspect

.
The only thing against poor Joe is that he was a collateral victim, in my opinion.

I don’t regard any on that list as very viable – Hutchinson and Kosminsky are the best though but flawed for different reasons.

Strike out Kosminsky. Cross is also flawed.

[Cogidubnus]

Where in the world did I find this frieze sculpture of the no 1 Ripper suspect going about his work...

And if he doesn't handle that beehive more carefully he's going to get stung...then he'll be a very cross Paul...

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Howard posted this on the other site...very, very interesting. So, either it's referring to Cross/Paul as potential suspects in the Nichols murder, or it's referring to Tomkins and the other slaughtermen. Any thoughts? It's from the Briston Mercury, Sept. 6th, 1888.

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Forums%202012/sep6.jpg

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Hi Tom!

Should that not be the Bristol Mercury? With an l?

Interesting stuff, anyways! But I donīt see it relating to either Cross/Paul or the horse-slaughterers.
A man "not immediately concerned in the crime" but with "knowledge of the circumstances" of it all ...? Who may make a confession? Who would that be?
Much thought back then was related to the knowledge of gangs in the area, and as it is spoken of more than just the one man, it becomes tempting to think along those lines. But who the purported snitch would be in such a case is beyond me - sounds more like a relative or something like that, rather than a gang member.

Anyway, Lechmere was the guy who did it. Once we realize that, we can all go home

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

There was a lot of nonsense spoken of in the press no doub often fed by police wishful thinking. Could it relate to Pizer?

[Fisherman]

Would he not have been "immediately concerned in the crime", though ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all. I don't see Pizer playing a part in this just yet. And there was NEVER a 'group of people' involved in the Pizer theory, but there was Tomkins and the slaughter men. And I thought there was an outside possibility of Cross and Paul. More than likely, in my opinion, this is referring to the slaughter men.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott