A General Question

[Ginger]

Perhaps this is something that has long since been settled, and I'm just too much of a n00b to know about it, but why on earth isn't there a dedicated suspect category for discussions about Lechmere/Cross? Fully half, if not more, of the content in the 'general' category deals with him. Regardless of whether one considers him a plausible suspect, I think he certainly ought to have a category.

[c.d.]

Perhaps this is something that has long since been settled, and I'm just too much of a n00b to know about it, but why on earth isn't there a dedicated suspect category for discussions about Lechmere/Cross? Fully half, if not more, of the content in the 'general' category deals with him. Regardless of whether one considers him a plausible suspect, I think he certainly ought to have a category.

Hello Ginger,

I think Lechmere/Cross should be the first candidate in the Let's Give It a Rest Category." People are going off the deep end with that guy. Seriously.


c.d.

[lynn cates]

agree

Hello CD. "Ah node it." (local expression) At some point today we HAD to agree.

Cheers.
LC

[Harry D]

I would imagine that's precisely why certain members have been posting one needless Crossmere thread after another, in an thinly veiled attempt to necessitate his own section and therefore establish his legitimacy as a suspect.

[Ginger]

I would imagine that's precisely why certain members have been posting one needless Crossmere thread after another, in an thinly veiled attempt to necessitate his own section and therefore establish his legitimacy as a suspect.

There are sections for Prince Albert Victor, 'The Royals', and Lewis Carrol. I'm going to have to opine that having one's own section doesn't necessarily bestow the mantle of legitimacy upon a suspect.

[GUT]

There are sections for Prince Albert Victor, 'The Royals', and Lewis Carrol. I'm going to have to opine that having one's own section doesn't necessarily bestow the mantle of legitimacy upon a suspect.

Mmmmmm but I seem to recall books have been published on them, maybe that's the difference.

[Lechmere]

Just to disabuse Harry's conspiracy theory, if you check through you will find that the majority of Lechmere threads are started by non-Lechmere-as-Ripper advocates.
I'm not troubled by the lack of a Lechmere section. But would it be under Lechmere or Cross? There's a problem straight away!
I regard the reluctance to accept Lechmere as a valid suspect as an amusing commentary on the nature of 'Ripperology'.

[Ginger]

Mmmmmm but I seem to recall books have been published on them, maybe that's the difference.

Fogelma?

[GUT]

Fogelma?

Well I was referring to the three you named.

Fogelma was at least named in [from memory] 1888 although if I recall correctly only in 1 newspaper.

[pinkmoon]

Should start one for Henry as well he's been forgotten about for years.

[Sally]

I'm not troubled by the lack of a Lechmere section. But would it be under Lechmere or Cross? There's a problem straight away!

Crossmere, surely??

No problem at all

[Harry D]

Just to disabuse Harry's conspiracy theory, if you check through you will find that the majority of Lechmere threads are started by non-Lechmere-as-Ripper advocates.

Yeah but it's the usual suspects that are keeping them going.

[Lechmere]

If people ask questions then it is only polite to reply.

[Patrick S]

He is listed - appropriately - under 'Witnesses'.

Tom Wescott makes a comment in his excellent 'Bank Holiday Murders' with respect to PC Amos Simpson, who's family put up for auction in 2007 a bloody shawl, claiming that it was taken (by PC Simpson) from the body of Catherine Eddowes at Mitre Square:

"Considering the current fad of 'promoting' witnesses in the case to suspects, it's absolutely remarkable that no one has put two and two together and suggested that posession of such an item from a crime scene he had no business being at points to Simpson as the likely murderer of Eddowes."

Simpson was likely not at the crime scene at all. The shawl is almost certainly a fake. Yet, this is more evidence than we have against Charles Cross (Lechmere), isn't it? Cross had - as far as ANYONE knows - no criminal history whatsoever. His family has not presented any (alleged) relics from the murders as Charlie's Jack the Ripper keepsakes. All we have is a few fellows who found the fact that Charles Cross was also Charles Lechmere suspcious. Despite what they may have you infer from their posts, that's all they have. Everything else has been invented.

[Harry D]

He is listed - appropriately - under 'Witnesses'.

Tom Wescott makes a comment in his excellent 'Bank Holiday Murders' with respect to PC Amos Simpson, who's family put up for auction in 2007 a bloody shawl, claiming that it was taken (by PC Simpson) from the body of Catherine Eddowes at Mitre Square:

"Considering the current fad of 'promoting' witnesses in the case to suspects, it's absolutely remarkable that no one has put two and two together and suggested that posession of such an item from a crime scene he had no business being at points to Simpson as the likely murderer of Eddowes."

Simpson was likely not at the crime scene at all. The shawl is almost certainly a fake. Yet, this is more evidence than we have against Charles Cross (Lechmere), isn't it? Cross had - as far as ANYONE knows - no criminal history whatsoever. His family has not presented any (alleged) relics from the murders as Charlie's Jack the Ripper keepsakes. All we have is a few fellows who found the fact that Charles Cross was also Charles Lechmere suspcious. Despite what they may have you infer from their posts, that's all they have. Everything else has been invented.

Spot on.