The Mizen scam

[Cogidubnus]

And IF , he was the killer , he was far from in control .. as i mentioned a lot earlier in this thread " He really had no idea if someone was indeed watching him from a window directly opposite in Essex Wharf or to the side in new cottage " He had no idea if someone was ready to point a finger at him .. He had a lot more to risk in hanging about than he had in putting his head down and walking on his way to work . When we weigh up all the odds that could have gone against him when he chose to become involved in the whole discovery malarkey , as opposed to simply dodging past a policeman on his beat .. it really is quite phenomenal that he would choose to hang about .

I find that quite a convincing argument Moonbegger

All the best

Dave

[Rubyretro]

But imagine how dark it would have been, and what time it was, and the distance from a person looking from a window to the murderer -who had his head down, bent down over Polly. Morever, there was a lot less variation in clothing, hat and hairstyles then.

I can't see how it would be remotely possible for anyone looking out of the window to identify the murderer.

And if they looked out of the window and saw the attack on Polly, what would they do about it ? No telephone.

They might be a woman, or a child, or old -they'd hardly want a closer look.

I should think that a strong man would hesitate to approach a murderer with a knife that was not going to want to be identified later, and hung.

The danger for Jack would clearly be from someone coming upon him on the street, or running into a Policeman....

[Bridewell]

The Last Paragraph

Hi Lechmere,

I was with you until I reached the last paragraph:

He turned up at the inquest in his work clothes.

He was a working man, a carman, in a low-paid job. If he kept his working clothes on, he could minimise the length of time he was away from work. Pretending that this is in any way suspicious weakens, rather than strengthens, the case for Cross / Lechmere as the Ripper.

He appeared at a police station, almost certainly after Paul's newspaper story came out and gave a false name - Cross.

It wasn't a 'false' name though, was it? It was a name by which he had been known previously. Blenkinsop or Bloggs would have been a 'false' name. Cross wasn't.

We can say with near certainty he was never visited by the police (as evidenced by them calling him Cross in their October report).

If the police didn't visit him, how would that be, in any way, evidence of his guilt? That would be their failure, not his.

He can be linked to all the other murder scenes - most interestingly to Hanbury Street, but also to Berner Street and Pinchin Street.

If having a relative living within a couple of hundred yards is a link to Berner Street and Pinchin Street, the same could probably be said of quite a few people. If walking along Hanbury Street on his way to work is a link to the Chapman murder, then numerous others are similarly implicated, are they not?
The links to Millers Court and Mitre Square...?

He had a somewhat disfunctional background that provided possible fealings of powerlessness, and entitlement.

He had a step-father who was a policeman. The feelings of powerlessness and entitlement are pure speculation. They are your opinion of how his circumstances might have made him feel.

He moved to an address that meant his route to work traversed the killing ground just a few weeks before the murders started.

This just isn't an argument. If he hadn't made the move, he wouldn't have had to walk along Bucks Row in order to get to work. He did make the move, so he did walk along Bucks Row, so he did find the body there? What does that prove?

There is a case for Cross / Lechmere as a suspect, but it's not helped by some of the material posted in support of that case when it serves only to undermine it. 'Dysfunctional background' is a phrase you are using to describe the fact that he had a step-father, and that a bigamous marriage may have been involved. It's a 'light year' leap of logic to argue that such a background makes him a probable serial-killer. The links to the crime scenes, with the exception of Bucks Row, are tenuous at best. If Cross / Lechmere is the Ripper I genuinely hope you are able to unearth the evidence which leads to that conclusion, but supposition, built upon a worst-case interpretation of the known facts, is not that evidence and never will be, no matter how often it is repeated. It is wholly counter-productive in my view.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Rubyretro]

Hello, Colin !

I know that your post is for Lechmere, but I can't resist making a few comments :

If the police didn't visit him, how would that be, in any way, evidence of his guilt? That would be their failure, not his.

It's not evidence of Cross's guilt, but it is evidence that he couldn't have been investigated, or else they would have known that he was Lechmere. In murder cases today, surely they begin with the person who claims to have found the body (and then 'last to see the victim alive.' etc) ?
That's because they often turn out to be the killer.

I would say that if you wrote in a crime novel about a murderer suprised at a crime scene by a third person, who then claims to have just found the body, you might be accused of cliché. But clichés become clichés because they are based in verities.

The fact that Cross/Lechmere wasn't investigated leaves him open to suspicion.

If having a relative living within a couple of hundred yards is a link to Berner Street and Pinchin Street, the same could probably be said of quite a few people. If walking along Hanbury Street on his way to work is a link to the Chapman murder, then numerous others are similarly implicated, are they not?
The links to Millers Court and Mitre Square...?

It is a provable link. There is no other person at one of the murder scenes that that we can prove had a reason to be in the area of the other murders.
If you are a 'Jackster' (I like Lynn's term), then it strengthens the case for a particular suspect if you can demonstrate that he had links to all the sites.

(I think Miller's Court was on his way to work, Mitre Square -I don't know).

Anybody else with links to all the locations, can't be put forward as a suspect because we can't concretely place him at one of the murder scenes at the right time (I'm talking about Mr Unknown).

For me, this is the strongest argument in favour of Cross. It's probably the only point which is unarguable. It doesn't make him guilty, but it adds weight in his favour.

There is a case for Cross / Lechmere as a suspect, but it's not helped by some of the material posted in support of that case when it serves only to undermine it.

Just out of curiosity, as a Policeman, what would you use to make a case against Cross/Lechmere since you say that there is a case ?

The links to the crime scenes, with the exception of Bucks Row, are tenuous at best.

They might be tenuous -but they are there !

If Cross / Lechmere is the Ripper I genuinely hope you are able to unearth the evidence which leads to that conclusion, but supposition, built upon a worst-case interpretation of the known facts, is not that evidence and never will be, no matter how often it is repeated.

At this remove in time, we are obliged to build cases on a whole lot of supposition -interpretation of facts. It would be extremely short and boring debating on Casebook if we coudn't !

[moonbegger]

But imagine how dark it would have been, and what time it was, and the distance from a person looking from a window to the murderer -who had his head down, bent down over Polly. Morever, there was a lot less variation in clothing, hat and hairstyles then.

I can't see how it would be remotely possible for anyone looking out of the window to identify the murderer.

And if they looked out of the window and saw the attack on Polly, what would they do about it ? No telephone.

They might be a woman, or a child, or old -they'd hardly want a closer look.

I should think that a strong man would hesitate to approach a murderer with a knife that was not going to want to be identified later, and hung.

The danger for Jack would clearly be from someone coming upon him on the street, or running into a Policeman....

Hello RR

"But imagine how dark it would have been, and what time it was, and the distance from a person looking from a window to the murderer -who had his head down, bent down over Polly. Morever, there was a lot less variation in clothing, hat and hairstyles then. I can't see how it would be remotely possible for anyone looking out of the window to identify the murderer"

Without wishing to turn into that preverbal goldfish

Yes , until he stepped out of the shadows into the centre of the road .. and doubled up as part of the discovery team .. i can almost hear Mrs Purkis now " Yes officer i saw him that killed her over at the stables .. then he stepped out into the middle of the road .. and was joined by this other chap .. Gore blimey , that's him there "

I really don't even think that anyone would need to see the killers face . The very fact that an unidentifiable man stepped away from the Kill site and was joined by another unidentified man , then both shadowy men went back to the body , before walking off towards the school . Shortly after that a policeman arrived . I really don't think it would take rocket science for the police to put two and two together ..

The killer of Polly would have been totally aware of the possibility of this scenario playing out .. and my guess is , it is a lot more plausible that he would rely on his Ears and his Eyes to simply avoid running into a policeman on his beat .

moonbegger.

You Know it makes sense Rodney

[Rubyretro]

Hello RR

"But imagine how dark it would have been, and what time it was, and the distance from a person looking from a window to the murderer -who had his head down, bent down over Polly. Morever, there was a lot less variation in clothing, hat and hairstyles then. I can't see how it would be remotely possible for anyone looking out of the window to identify the murderer"

Without wishing to turn into that preverbal goldfish

Yes , until he stepped out of the shadows into the centre of the road .. and doubled up as part of the discovery team .. i can almost hear Mrs Purkis now " Yes officer i saw him that killed her over at the stables .. then he stepped out into the middle of the road .. and was joined by this other chap .. Gore blimey , that's him there "

I really don't even think that anyone would need to see the killers face . The very fact that an unidentifiable man stepped away from the Kill site and was joined by another unidentified man , then both shadowy men went back to the body , before walking off towards the school . Shortly after that a policeman arrived . I really don't think it would take rocket science for the police to put two and two together ..

The killer of Polly would have been totally aware of the possibility of this scenario playing out .. and my guess is , it is a lot more plausible that he would rely on his Ears and his Eyes to simply avoid running into a policeman on his beat .

moonbegger.

You Know it makes sense Rodney

Um...yes...Moonbugger (sorry that was an actual typo ! -but I left it in...it might be freudian ) ' laughing smiley' (where do you get those critters from ? I don't seem to have them )

Yes, I get your point.

Well, I expect that he wouldn't have been worried when killing, and then, since everything was still, dark, and silent, with not a hint of anyone awake
except Paul inexorably advancing towards him.. he took the caculated risk
to turn instead of to run.

I expect Fisherman could have added (a page or two !) to that.

[Bridewell]

Hello, Colin !

I know that your post is for Lechmere, but I can't resist making a few comments :

It is a provable link. There is no other person at one of the murder scenes that that we can prove had a reason to be in the area of the other murders.
If you are a 'Jackster' (I like Lynn's term), then it strengthens the case for a particular suspect if you can demonstrate that he had links to all the sites.

Undoubtedly, but I don't think that proven link is there for Cross / Lechmere or, to be honest, any other suspect.

Just out of curiosity, as a Policeman, what would you use to make a case against Cross/Lechmere since you say that there is a case ?

The case is simply that he found the body. The circumstances are, as Fisherman demonstrated in his article, open to interpretation. If you presume guilt, he looks suspicious. If you presume innocence, he doesn't.

At this remove in time, we are obliged to build cases on a whole lot of supposition -interpretation of facts.

I don't think we're obliged to build cases but if we do, yes, there is a need for supposition. The problem is that whereas a 'worst case' supposition creates a case, a 'best case' supposition rebuts it. Fisherman and Lechmere have borne the brunt of this process in recent weeks but I think we're all in the same boat if we attempt to argue a case for a particular suspect.

Regards, Bridewell

[Rubyretro]

I don't think we're obliged to build cases but if we do, yes, there is a need for supposition. The problem is that whereas a 'worst case' supposition creates a case, a 'best case' supposition rebuts it. Fisherman and Lechmere have borne the brunt of this process in recent weeks but I think we're all in the same boat if we attempt to argue a case for a particular suspect.

Regards, Bridewell[/QUOTE]

Well, said ! The same thing applies to any of the suspects.

[Cogidubnus]

Spot on Colin....

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

The problem is that whereas a 'worst case' supposition creates a case, a 'best case' supposition rebuts it.

I must be daft, because I don't understand what this means. Can someone please elucidate? And let me please add that not all suspect arguments require as much pure speculation built upon speculation as does the Cross argument.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Sergei says....

Hi Tom

I don't think it's really complicated:

If you presume guilt, he looks suspicious. If you presume innocence, he doesn't.

Colin's clearly expressing the view that preconceptions may colour the views we develop over witnesses/suspects reliability or otherwise. This is fairly obvious.

However:

The problem is that whereas a 'worst case' supposition creates a case, a 'best case' supposition rebuts it.

Colin is developing on this theme, and declaring that taking this to extremes, one person can easily be predisposed to believe the worst of the evidence in a particular situation, and see in the facts something deeply suspicious, whilst another, looking at the precisely the same evidence may (through being predisposed to believe the best), see in that same evidence a rebuttal.

All the best

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Dave, thanks for that. I now join you in saying 'spot on' to that. The trick of it all is, of course, to not live on the side of either extreme, but reside in the middle while taking occassional (and oh so necessary) sojourns to both sides, to view everything from all possible angles.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

... The trick of it all is, of course, to not live on the side of either extreme, but reside in the middle while taking occassional (and oh so necessary) sojourns to both sides, to view everything from all possible angles.

Well Tom, lets hope you start a new trend.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

....I don't think we're obliged to build cases but if we do, yes, there is a need for supposition.

Absolutely there is. Supposition is what starts the journey, and supposition can provide the investigator with a number of different roads to take. However, it is only evidence which paves the way to a solution.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Absolutely there is. Supposition is what starts the journey, and supposition can provide the investigator with a number of different roads to take. However, it is only evidence which paves the way to a solution.

Regards, Jon S.

Well Jon...you could aways go along to that event ' The Jack the Ripper Mystery and The Bethnal Green Disaster' at St John's Church, Bethnal Green on the 31st of August (check it out under General Discussion -conferences ) -maybe there will be more evidence forthcoming ?...there's bound to be some surprises.

If not, you can always take the opportunity of telling Lechmere and Fisherman what you think to their faces..(how tall are you, and how much do you weigh, by the way ...?)