Jack The Ripper solved?

[Fisherman]

30/40 yards is about 30 seconds away, Christer. Somehwere in that ballpark.

Paul didn`t see Cross crouching, wiping his hands, stashing anything away, moving away from the body, he was just standing in the middle of the road, as Cross tells us.

I wouldn“t know about the 30 sec ballpark (Paul was in a hurry) - but I would not care much either.

And yes, of course Paul did not see Lechmere swinging intestines in the air - if he had, we would never have heard of Jack the Ripper, but instead we would have a forgotten crime committed by some Lechmere guy that swinged for what he did.

Lechmere“s ruse would have entailed loking inconspicious. It would have been vital for him not to do any intestine-swinging. He made an effort to con Paul, if I“m correct (I must ALWAYS remember to add that!), and his best chance of succeeding involved getting away from the victim and ensuring Paul that he had arrived almost at the same time as Lechmere.

But once again, Jon - who says that Pauol was close on Lechmere“s tail? Who is the man guaranteeing this? On who must we rely to make it work ą la Lechmere?

And why, oh why, do we not have Paul saying "I could hear a man walking in front of me down Buck“s Row, and then I heard the steps die down in the darkness. A few seconds later I saw this man standing in the street ..."

Why is it that he says nothing at all of being aware of that other man until he sees him a few feet from the victim, standing in the middle of the street?

And that“s just one of the elements in the ever growing pile of anomalies attaching to Lechmere.

We cannot use Paul to confirm that the two were just seconds apart. We have only Lechmere“s word for this - and what we have on Paul (the lacking sound of steps in front of him) speak against Lechmere“s version. The street was empty and silent. It therefore seems to me that Lechmere was positioned down at Browns stable yard all the time after Paul turned into the street.

Lastly - if I may: Many, many thanks for debating this soundly and justly. You set an example for others to follow.

Fisherman

[Lechmere]

In all the canonical and non canonical Whitechapel Murders, how many other people (witnesses or suspects call them what you will) were seen by someone else, standing very close to a murdered body prior to that person raising the alarm?
None.

[Scott Nelson]

That's why it's not such a bad theory as far as Ripperology goes. It's not a single person's take. Osbourne, Conner, and then Pete (Mr. Lucky) and Ed and Christer have all come to similar (and independent?) conclusions about Lechmere, albeit the specific details vary.

[Lechmere]

Watch it Scott - you aren't supposed to say that.

Monty
The police where specifically taken to task by the Coroner for neglecting to interview all but a handful of residents in Bucks Row. I am sure I have had this conversation with you before.

[Monty]

Ah, all but a handful.

So residents in Bucks Row were interviewed, as was indeed pointed out in our last exchange on the matter.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

That's why it's not such a bad theory as far as Ripperology goes. It's not a single person's take. Osbourne, Conner, and then Pete (Mr. Lucky) and Ed and Christer have all come to similar (and independent?) conclusions about Lechmere, albeit the specific details vary.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not so sure that Osourne and Connor were as convinced as Fish and Ed. They were more intrigued by the possibility. As was I. I dare say most of us considered it long before there was a Fish and Ed. But now that the possibility has been explored to its fullest, surely the notion of Cross as Ripper has become an improbability?

Jon's observation about Cross having touched Paul with his apparently bloodless hand was spot on.

So Lechmere's writing a book? Is there enough material on Cross and this theory to warrant a book? A 15 page Rip essay, perhaps...but a book?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mr Lucky]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not so sure that Osourne and Connor were as convinced as Fish and Ed. They were more intrigued by the possibility. As was I. I dare say most of us considered it long before there was a Fish and Ed. But now that the possibility has been explored to its fullest, surely the notion of Cross as Ripper has become an improbability?

Hi Tom

Frankly, I felt the same about the original theory, as now promoted by Fish and Ed so I gave up with it. And there are some problems with the standard version of what happened on Buck's-row that aren't resolved by Cross becoming the standard version of the killer.

Jon's observation about Cross having touched Paul with his apparently bloodless hand was spot on.

Yeah, that's one of the reasons I gave up with it, - but now in my version he hasn't any blood on his hands yet.

[Lechmere]

The reason why possibly having blood on his hand wouldn't have been a problem is that Lechmere got Paul to touch the body so providing a valid reason, or excuse, for blood transfers.
Also he could have wiped his hands on Nichols' garments before turning to face Paul.
In any case who is to say that any killer got bloody hands?
One way or another the touching on the shoulder is of no significance in diminishing the Lechmere theory.

There have been four books on Hutchinson - there is a massive amount more than can be said about these crimes and Lechmere's relationship to them than can be said about Hutchinson.

[Tom_Wescott]

Just downloaded the new Begg and Bennett. Christer will be pleased that he's mentioned in there and Cross is briefly discussed as a suspect, behind Le Grand, of course.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

So Lechmere's writing a book? Is there enough material on Cross and this theory to warrant a book? A 15 page Rip essay, perhaps...but a book?

From Messrs. Begg and Bennett:

'What the activities surrounding Le Grand's and Cross's appearances as suspects show us is that neither of these suspects have had full-length accounts published about them, and yet many thousands of words have been typed - in dedicated Ripper periodicals and most notably cyberspace - already. It is as though these theories are doomed for the moment to float on the ether, which is a pity, as both Le Grand and Cross can be considered as far better choices than some other suspects which have been proposed. The efforts that have gone into researching these previously little-known individuals is waiting for a lengthy, less fragmented treatment and as such would be warmly anticipated.'

Well, Ed, we'd better get to work.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

There have been four books on Hutchinson - there is a massive amount more than can be said about these crimes and Lechmere's relationship to them than can be said about Hutchinson.

The case against Hutchinson is based entirely on what we do not know. Everything is conjecture, and you can do that with any witness.

I'm sorry I can't buy into the Lechmere/Cross theory either - it just doesn't sit right with me, but then that applies to every suggested suspect in my book.

[Lechmere]

But you are a secret Druittist!

I'm confining myself to one liners - I've an eagerly awaited book to write.
I must get it out before the Le Grand nonsense destroys the credibility of suspect based Ripperology for good.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Wickerman,

... - it just doesn't sit right with me, but then that applies to every suggested suspect in my book.

You don't have one single suspect you favor? Not one. Not even a little.

Roy

[Tom_Wescott]

But you are a secret Druittist!

I'm confining myself to one liners - I've an eagerly awaited book to write.
I must get it out before the Le Grand nonsense destroys the credibility of suspect based Ripperology for good.

Charles Lechmere, Charles Le Grand. Me thinks they might be one and the same. Should we partner up and ruin Ripperology together? I say woo hoo to all those Yankee Dollars!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Wick's a Druittist? I wasn't aware. Explains much.

[Lechmere]

Yes he is - he now lies naked on the altar of Ripperology for all to see.