Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;317937]So on the basis of you illogical reasoning everyone who finds a body is to be regarded as a suspect ?

Letīs stop you right here. Of course we do not have the same reason to suspect people who discover long dead and cold bodies.

But when we have somebody "finding" a body and the TOD dovetails with that persons presence at the site, it is a different matter. You are the ex-cop, you should be able to tell the difference. Otherwise we need to accuse Howard Carter for slaying Tutanchamon. Get a grip!

And the crucial question you cannot seem to answer is "Why didn't he run when he heard footsteps approaching?"

Iīve answered that a thousand times. Apparently you have missed out on that?
Are you aware that psychopaths lack the so called startle reflex? And that their muscles do not contract themselves, making them ready for flight?

No?

Now, is it a fact or is it not a fact that people found alone by FRESHLY KILLED victims (and that exonerates Howard Carter, thatīs the point I am making), must be looked upon as potential killers until they can be cleared?

Use your copperīs experience.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

If cross was the ripper then why did he hang round after the Nichols murder instead of legging it of like he did on all the other murders.

In how many cases could he bluff it out? Exactly: one. The next time, he HAD to leg it, unless he wanted to go with "Hello again, itīs me, Charles Cross. Guess what happened again?"

As for the reasons he did not leg it in Buckīs Row, can I suggest one of the hundreds of posts that have the explanation written in them?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jonathan H]

But Anderson and Swanson can be shown to know less about Aaron Kosminski (as opposed to "Kosminski") than Macnaghten (and Sims) who of course chose Druitt.

So how can K be the "best suspect"?

The Polish madmen was certainly not the best suspect of the Edwardian era. Rather it is a 1980's construct of amazing flimsiness.

It was constructed to offset the Royal rubbish, which was good and necessary, but also because of the misconception that Mac had been discredited due to his 'errors'.

The case for Kosminski, by 2015, has long been superseded by far more important primary sources than the Marginalia, what with its appalling, self-serving errors.

[Fisherman]

From what I have been told it is suggested that Cross was born Charles Allen Lechmere in 1858 and it is reported that his mother married a Thomas Cross, a policeman and Charles took and used his surname thereafter.

The one I am researching was born in St Anns, Soho, in 1849. And about him, there is no evidence at all that he ever used the name Cross. But there IS evidence that he was baptised Lechmere the year AFTER Maria Louisa Roulson married Thomas Cross.

Maybe we are researching different men, since they seem so unalike.

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

The one I am researching was born in St Anns, Soho, in 1849. And about him, there is no evidence at all that he ever used the name Cross. But there IS evidence that he was baptised Lechmere the year AFTER Maria Louisa Roulson married Thomas Cross.

Maybe we are researching different men, since they seem so unalike.

The best,
Fisherman

Well which one will the documentary refer to ? or did you not know about the other one ?

The stumbling block is as I previously stated out of all the names that could have been used as a false name why pick Lechmere? not even a common name

As to running away when the killer was killing in public like this he would have been in a state of being alert as to what was going on around him and wanting to avoid being caught committing the crime. So you would have expected him to be conscious of Paul coming along the street in his direction in fact he would have no doubt heard him long before he actually saw him, and given the darkness Paul would probably not have even seen him until he was almost on top of him.

So if he was the killer then he would have had ample time to run off

[Fisherman]

The only document I've seen was a census record when he was just a tyke, about 11 I think. I'd love to actually see proof that he used that name. But again I believe that he probably did but cannot beleive that the police didn't visit his place of work and/or his home.

That is a strange stance to take when you know quite well that they didnīt get his correct name. You need an explanation for that!

And this was in 1888, a stiff hundred years removed from the Bow Street Runners. Up til that time (the mid 18:th Century), it was legally sanctioned to hunt for witches.

We live at the same distance timewise from 1888.

If you think the Victorian police were totally up to scratch, unprejudiced and working from the kind of principles we work from today, then think again.

If you did not know that they settled for knocking on just a few doors in Buckīs Row Before the coroner reprimanded them, Iīm sure you would have said that theyīd NEVER..!

But there you are.

Find me an explanation to why he went down as Cross if they knew his real name was Lechmere, and then we may have a case. Otherwise: no.

And remember that this man was found next to a freshly killed woman!

And remember that he apparently lied his way past Mizen!

And remember the correlation between his roads and the murder sites!

Maybe an alarm clock or two needs to go off. Or should we just write him off, and accept that the police cleared him - but forgot to find out who he was?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

Well if Cross wasn't Lechmere, and was the killer, and wanted to give a false name, how uncanny is it that he just happened to pick the name Lechmere out of all the false names he could have picked?

He didnīt. You are confusing things beyond recognition. He WAS Lechmere, he WAS the killer according to me and he CHOSE the name Cross. As to why, I have explained it more times than it has been misinterpreted. And that says a lot.

I have just come across another mistake made by Swanson of marginalia fame ! in his report date Oct 19th 1888 in which he states that the body of Nicholls was found by two men on their way to work.

Itīs been pointed out numerous times before, Trevor. And yes, itīs wrong. And yes, it seemingly tells us that Swanson swallowed Lechmereīs story, hook, line and sinker.

The best,
Fisherman

[PaulB]

But Anderson and Swanson can be shown to know less about Aaron Kosminski (as opposed to "Kosminski") than Macnaghten (and Sims) who of course chose Druitt.

So how can K be the "best suspect"?

The Polish madmen was certainly not the best suspect of the Edwardian era. Rather it is a 1980's construct of amazing flimsiness.

It was constructed to offset the Royal rubbish, which was good and necessary, but also because of the misconception that Mac had been discredited due to his 'errors'.

The case for Kosminski, by 2015, has long been superseded by far more important primary sources than the Marginalia, what with its appalling, self-serving errors.

These are your views, Jonathan, and sincerely held. I respect that. But I was there in the 1980s and Kosminski wasn't a construct to offset the Royal theory. It was because Martin Fido's research led him to conclude that Anderson was the best and most reliable source and that his suspect was Jack the Ripper. Up until then it was assumed that Anderson's suspect was John Pizer (a good account of this will be found in Rumbelow's book). I don't really know what you mean that it was a construct of 'amazing flimsiness' - do you mean Martin's Cohen theory; if so, I agree.

I'm not sure that any primary sources have superceded the Marginalia.

[Trevor Marriott]

The one I am researching was born in St Anns, Soho, in 1849. And about him, there is no evidence at all that he ever used the name Cross. But there IS evidence that he was baptised Lechmere the year AFTER Maria Louisa Roulson married Thomas Cross.

Maybe we are researching different men, since they seem so unalike.

The best,
Fisherman

Have you not researched the one I refer to ?

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

Well which one will the documentary refer to ? or did you not know about the other one ?

We intend to use the witness Charles Lechmere, and no other person.

As to running away when the killer was killing in public like this he would have been in a state of being alert as to what was going on around him and wanting to avoid being caught committing the crime. So you would have expected him to be conscious of Paul coming along the street in his direction in fact he would have no doubt heard him long before he actually saw him, and given the darkness Paul would probably not have even seen him until he was almost on top of him.

So if he was the killer then he would have had ample time to run off.

Iīll take the short route: Watch the documentary.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I am suggesting that any further discussion about Lechmere is moved to Suspects: General Suspect discussion: So would he have run.

I will answer no more Lechmere questions on this thread.

The best,
Fisherman

[PaulB]

Anderson claims a Liberal Home Sec. put him under pressure about the Whitechapel murders.

We correct that partisan howler, don't we?

Plus I don't agree with Sudgen's explanation of double geriatric musings.

Nor with the consensus that Anderson is holding anything back, except for one thing: that the suspect was deceased--which he wasn't.

You say this was noticed before (that Mac knew "Kosminski" was alive). Do you know what secondary source says that?

You're going to despise my book Paul, as it's one long, unacceptable twerkathon.

I doubt that I will despise the book. As I understand it, it isn't based on a single theory but can be taken on different levels, good info about Druitt, new photos, some revelations... I'm really looking forward to it.

[Scott Nelson]

I don't really know what you mean that it was a construct of 'amazing flimsiness' - do you mean Martin's Cohen theory; if so, I agree.

How so?

[robhouse]

The case for Kosminski, by 2015, has long been superseded by far more important primary sources than the Marginalia, what with its appalling, self-serving errors.

Such as?

[robhouse]

How so?

I assume that Paul means that Martin's theory is flimsy. I agree... it is.

RH