Charles Cross

[clark2710]

The man standing over the body of Polly Nichols, Charles Cross, according to this doc. I'm watching "The Missing Evidence of Jack the Ripper" on Youtube. They're basically saying that Poly Nichols's killer is Charles Cross because he was at the body at the time. Any ideas or theories on Jack being this Charles Cross guy?

[clark2710]

I was too fast to post this I posted this in the early part of this doc. and it turns out Cross is Lechsmere. Answered my own question

[FISHY1118]

Ok ill give it a crack , The man your referring to Cross/Lechmere, who discovered the first ripper victim in Bucks Row on the 31st Aug1888 on his way to work at sometime between 3.30am.and 3.45am . That im afraid is all there is to it. In regards to him being JTR everything else is just pure speculation and circumstancial , in my opinion .

[Fisherman]

Ok ill give it a crack , The man your referring to Cross/Lechmere, who discovered the first ripper victim in Bucks Row on the 31st Aug1888 on his way to work at sometime between 3.30am.and 3.45am . That im afraid is all there is to it. In regards to him being JTR everything else is just pure speculation and circumstancial , in my opinion .

So lets see here; there IS something ”to it”. According to you, that something is that Lechmere found the body.
Does that make him the killer? Is that what you mean when you say that there is something ”to it”? Or do you mean that it MAY or MAY NOT point to guilt? If so, then why is not the correlation between Lechmeres morning work trek and the Spitalfields murders something that is ”to it”.
Because others walked the same way? But others could also have found the body, right? So in that respect we have two things that may or may not implicate guilt, right?

And the name change? That too may or may not implicate guilt.

The same goes for how Nichols still bled for many minutes after Lechmere left her.

The same goes for how Paul did not speak of having heard Lechmere walk in front of himself. And a number of other issues.

The idea that his ”finding” the body is all there is ”to it” seems to be a very uninformed view. Unless you are intentionally misleading?

To clark2710: Read up as much as you can. Make your own calls. Dont trust Fishy1118. And dont trust me. Do the work. The field is crammed with people who are not trustworthy, and sometimes even less than honest. Again, dont trust me on that, read all you can and compare what posters say to the sources and the known facts.

Once you do, you will be able to see whether or not Charles Lechmere is falsely pointed out as the killer, or whether he is the only factually based and realistic suspect.

If you ask me, I would say that there can be no realistic doubt that Lechmere was both the Ripper and the so called Thames Torso killer.

But don’ t do that - don’ t ask me.

Good luck and a happy New Year!

[FISHY1118]

Happpy New Year to you also Fisherman . Just a couple of things if i may , Firstly Clarke 2710 asked in his post if anyone had any theories? i simply replyed that its my theory Lechmere discovered the body which was then reported to the police and that was all there was to it. As for being an uniformed view or being intentionally misleading, the last time i checked the official inquest report the sourse of my theory [ i would hazard a guess most would agree is an informed view] into Mary Anne Nichols, i personally see nothing in Lechmeres testermony and the testomonies of other witnesses to believe otherwise. Now thats just my opinion and conclusion of the murder of Nicols are far as Lechmere is concerened . By all means if you or anyone else reaches another conclusion that you think makes him Jack the Ripper that fine with me ,you are free to interpret the evidence any way you see fit . But when askes by another poster for MY theory, or do i have any ideas about Lechmeres roll the murder in bucks row ,that will be my reply wholely and solely based on how I interpret the known facts in the Nicols case . Even the known facts still make Lechemeres case as Nichols murderer speculative and circumstancial. Very kind regards. Fishy