A General Question

[Lechmere]

But it's ok fir Hutchinson to be a suspect.
The sour grapes over Lechmere knows no end.

[Patrick S]

But it's ok fir Hutchinson to be a suspect.
The sour grapes over Lechmere knows no end.

What would cause one to harbour "sour grapes" over Lechmere?

It's either a compelling theory or it isn't. The fact of the matter is that most "suspects" are not compelling. Lechmere requires leaps in logic, supposition, and outright invention even to be considered far-fetched.

Again, the man used two names, Lechmere and Cross. He didn't invent the latter and he was born the former. He was entitled to use either name. Why and when would he choose to use one name rather than the other? I don't know. Neither to you. It wasn't because of his criminal history, since you've been unable to uncover one. It's a simple fact associated with Charles Cross, witness called to the Nichols inquest. It's not particularly notable or intersesting. It's certainly not compelling.

You make much of the fact that Lechmere's route to work took him close to the murder sites. It's not factual to say that the murders all occured during the time he would have been walking to work, so let's just deal with this fact. It's been understood since the contemporary investigation that all of the crimes were committed in a very small geograhical area. Therefore, anyone who's route to ANYWHERE took them close to any ONE of the murder sites falls under suspicion.

You and Fisherman have presented a case. It's not compelling. We've lost interest. That's not "sour grapes".

[Fisherman]

We've lost interest.

We?

Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Personally I think most of the "Suspects" section ought to be re-labelled "Persons of Interest"...because most of them (not all) are little more than that...with the remainder being relabelled perhaps "Contemporary Suspects"

On that basis, I'd have no problem, (despite my natural scepticism), in having a Lechmere section under "Persons of Interest"...

But then again, this is not my website, after all, and Stephen and Ally, who do own it, are free to do what they please with it...that they've clearly got so much right, and allow us all so much freedom is surely a tribute to them?

All the best

Dave

[Patrick S]

Personally I think most of the "Suspects" section ought to be re-labelled "Persons of Interest"...because most of them (not all) are little more than that...with the remainder being relabelled perhaps "Contemporary Suspects"

On that basis, I'd have no problem, (despite my natural scepticism), in having a Lechmere section under "Persons of Interest"...

But then again, this is not my website, after all, and Stephen and Ally, who do own it, are free to do what they please with it...that they've clearly got so much right, and allow us all so much freedom is surely a tribute to them?

All the best

Dave

Excellent point. Person of interest is accurate in that an indvidual may prove interesting from the perspective that more research may produce more interesting details, leading us to still more compelling information, leading to a reasonable scenario within which that person committed one or more of the Whitechapel murders. Barring some major development, I think this is about the most that can be hoped for in determining the ID of the "Jack the Ripper".

So, INTEREST is the operative word, and Lechemere fails to hold one's interest. Personally speaking, I feel it's not a good approach to suspend disbelief when dealing with factual analyses.

I've said this before and I'll say it more than once going forward: I was quite attracted to the idea of Cross/Lechmere as the Ripper. The IDEA is compelling. The facts, however, are anything but. There is literally nothing there beyond the fact that this man used the name 'Cross' rather than his birth name, 'Lechmere', while he was involved - as a witness - in Nichols investigation. This ONE fact has led an absurd level of invention and supposition.

Unlike the Lechmere the Ripper peddlers, I find his route to work completely uninteresting. Again, he found the body on his route to work. His proximity to one murder site puts him in proximity to ALL murder sites by virture of the fact that ALL of the murders were committed within a very small geographical area.

The whole thing reminds me of a scene from 'The Usual Suspects'.

Interrogation Cop: I can put you in Queens on the night of the hijacking.

Hockney: Really? I live in Queens. Did you put that together yourself, Einstein? What, do you got a team of monkeys working around the clock on this?

[Lechmere]

Another grumpy murder squad wannabee from the Cleaseau school.

[Barnaby]

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.

Other witnesses have their own suspect pages.

We can and should debate Charles Cross as a Ripper suspect. There are good suspects and there are bad suspects and examples of each can be found in the devoted Suspect pages. I can't think of an argument to exclude him.

[El White Chap]

Lechmere/Cross at the very least should be considered as a person of interest in this case. It wasn't until I became a member of these boards that I discovered he was supposedly the first person to find Polly dead. From there on in I've learnt a decent amount on him and he only continues to intrigue, again this was all through the efforts of other posters on here.

[Jon Guy]

Alfred Crow, John Richardson, John Davies, George Morris and the guy who worked nights at the Goulston Street wash house, will all require a Person of Interest page too.

[Patrick S]

Lechmere/Cross at the very least should be considered as a person of interest in this case. It wasn't until I became a member of these boards that I discovered he was supposedly the first person to find Polly dead. From there on in I've learnt a decent amount on him and he only continues to intrigue, again this was all through the efforts of other posters on here.

Cross found Nichols' body. This - as best I can tell - is not a point of contention. Cross found Nichols' body on his route to work. Again, not a contested point. Cross' route to work took him fairly close to all of the murder sites. Again, as best we can tell this is true. Initially, I can understand why this may "intrigue".

Here's an imagined scenario. Nichols is found on the pavement, not by Cross, but by a candlestick maker on his way to his shop located in Buck's Row, right smack dab in the middle of the "killing ground". He makes his way to the shop each morning at around 3:40am. The details from here are irrelevant. Fast-forward 120 years. An enterprising Ripperologist learns that in 1875 the candlestick maker was arrested for punching a guy in pub. Hmmmm.....this shows a violent tendency. So we go back and look at all those previously irrelevant details, what appeared in the (incredibly unreliable) papers, what was said at the inquest, what he said to the police. All of this is viewed with an "eye on his (the candlestickmaker) being guilty" (to quote Fisherman referencing Cross). What do you have? A "suspect" who was in close proximity to all the killings and reason to be out at that time of night/morning! I'll go further and say that you have a better suspect than Cross because at least you have ONE documented instance of violence. With Cross, we don't have that. We have the name issue. Oh, and "Mizen Scam"!

[Lechmere]

Oh
Where any of these people seen by a body prior to them raising the alarm?
If someone made a seroouscharges for any of them.then.I guess the logical thing would be that they should have a suspect page.
But in the wacky world of Ripperology grounds for criminal suspicion.are seldom taken notice of by the amateur sleuths.

[Patrick S]

Oh
Where any of these people seen by a body prior to them raising the alarm?
If someone made a seroouscharges for any of them.then.I guess the logical thing would be that they should have a suspect page.
But in the wacky world of Ripperology grounds for criminal suspicion.are seldom taken notice of by the amateur sleuths.

As opposed to the professionals? Like you? Glad we have experts such as yoruself to guide us....not just on "Ripper Tours", but in general.

[Lechmere]

Patrick I am very comfortable in my assessment.
It is one thing for someone on balance to feel that Lechmere is not the most likely suspect, or perhaps even a very good suspect - being in denial that he has any merit at all as a suspect as some do on here, undermines the credibility of these people. But then Ripperology isn't the most realistic branch of criminology - if it can.be included as a branch of criminology.

[Jon Guy]

Oh
Where any of these people seen by a body prior to them raising the alarm?.

I don`t think anyone was seen by a body prior to them raising the alarm ?

Alfred Crow claimed he thought it was someone sleeping.
John Richardson claimed the body wasn`t there when he was in the yard
George Morris claimed he was brushing up inside

[Lechmere]

So none of them were seen by a body by someone else?