So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel?

[Fisherman]

Assuming Stride was a Ripper victim, is there any evidence Lechmere was visiting his mother or daughter on the night of the murder? And, just out of interest, was Lechmere the only Whitechapel resident to work for Pickfords, or to have previously worked for them?

This is where we take a look at what Gareth said in his latest contribution to the discussion, commenting on the question of a suspects ties to the sites:

"Come to think of it, why should a killer have had any "ties" to any of these locations?"

This is perfectly correct: any murder could be perpetrated by somebody who has no previous ties or links to the murder site or - area.

So far, so good.

The problem with this is that it moves the goalposts. What is discussed out here is which suspect is the best fit geographically, and so the question we should ask ourselves is not whether a suspect MUST have links to an area or site, it is instead this:

If we have two suspects for the Stride murder, and if these suspects are equally likely to have been the killer, then which suspect is the better one?

The one who has no link or tie whatsoever to the site/area where the murder has been committed and thus no visible reason to have been there?

Or the one who has a link or tie to the area and a clearly defined reason to have been there?

As you are well aware, there is no evidence that Lechmere visited his mother and daughter on the murder night of Stride.
But there is a proven reason for why he may have done so! He is linked to the area as such, and that makes the case against him stronger.

As you equally well know, if Stride was the only victim, then Lechmere would be a lousy suspect, as would anyone else of whom we knew no more than that he had a reason to be there. The same applies to those who had a residence in Whitechapel when it comes to the Spitalfields murders - they are lousy suspect as long as we can only prove that they had an address in the area.

Somebody who is present alone at one of the murder scenes at remove in time when the murder has been perpetrated, however, is automatically a person of very great interest. Thatīs what happens when you are found with a murder victim.

And if it can later be proven that he is logically a geographical fit for the rest of the murders too, then he will more than likely become a suspect on those grounds only, and rightfully so.

Do you object to this in any way, John?

[Batman]

False analogies will not include that the "murderer" WAITS for a witness to catch up to him from down the other end of the street, in the dark, so said murderer can call them over for a look, despite that person not wanting to go near them until the "murderer" insists he comes over.

A true analogy would have to contain that.

It's omitted because it's inexplicable. It only makes sense if Cross is a genuine witness.

[Abby Normal]

Not in the slightest. What "ties" had Cross to 29 Hanbury Street, Dutfield's Yard, Mitre Square or Miller's Court? Or George Yard and Pinchin Street for that mattter?

Come to think of it, why should a killer have had any "ties" to any of these locations?

Because when trying to establish the validty of any suspect, you have to IMHO, at least establish they were in the area during the murders, and once doing that to place them with or near the victims as much as possible.

And not only do we have specifically lech with one of the victims, we have his pattern of movement around and near the other murder sites, something we dont have with ANY other suspects.

[John Wheat]

Because when trying to establish the validty of any suspect, you have to IMHO, at least establish they were in the area during the murders, and once doing that to place them with or near the victims as much as possible.

And not only do we have specifically lech with one of the victims, we have his pattern of movement around and near the other murder sites, something we dont have with ANY other suspects.

Ridiculous. Lechmere found a body so what? The rest of your post is pure supposition.

[Harry D]

False analogies will not include that the "murderer" WAITS for a witness to catch up to him from down the other end of the street, in the dark, so said murderer can call them over for a look, despite that person not wanting to go near them until the "murderer" insists he comes over.

A true analogy would have to contain that.

It's omitted because it's inexplicable. It only makes sense if Cross is a genuine witness.

Yes, Lechmere is standing over the freshly killed Nichols when he hears footsteps approaching in the distance. Having done his dirty work in lowlight, not knowing if his clothes were bloodstained, and presumably still carrying the murder weapon, Lechmere decides to wait for this stranger (who might well be one of the patrolling bobbies) instead of making good his escape. You can perform all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify this move but common sense tells you it doesn't stack up.

[Batman]

Because when trying to establish the validty of any suspect, you have to IMHO, at least establish they were in the area during the murders, and once doing that to place them with or near the victims as much as possible.

And not only do we have specifically lech with one of the victims, we have his pattern of movement around and near the other murder sites, something we dont have with ANY other suspects.

He isn't a suspect. That's the circular reasoning going on.

If Cross is a suspect, then here is a better suspect who is a JtR murder witness. This person lived in the hot zone, closer to all the murders, found a JtR victim, left the body without reporting it and worked as a cab driver, meaning access to everywhere in Whitechapel, murders sites or not.

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=462863&postcount=865

[John G]

This is where we take a look at what Gareth said in his latest contribution to the discussion, commenting on the question of a suspects ties to the sites:

"Come to think of it, why should a killer have had any "ties" to any of these locations?"

This is perfectly correct: any murder could be perpetrated by somebody who has no previous ties or links to the murder site or - area.

So far, so good.

The problem with this is that it moves the goalposts. What is discussed out here is which suspect is the best fit geographically, and so the question we should ask ourselves is not whether a suspect MUST have links to an area or site, it is instead this:

If we have two suspects for the Stride murder, and if these suspects are equally likely to have been the killer, then which suspect is the better one?

The one who has no link or tie whatsoever to the site/area where the murder has been committed and thus no visible reason to have been there?

Or the one who has a link or tie to the area and a clearly defined reason to have been there?

As you are well aware, there is no evidence that Lechmere visited his mother and daughter on the murder night of Stride.
But there is a proven reason for why he may have done so! He is linked to the area as such, and that makes the case against him stronger.

As you equally well know, if Stride was the only victim, then Lechmere would be a lousy suspect, as would anyone else of whom we knew no more than that he had a reason to be there. The same applies to those who had a residence in Whitechapel when it comes to the Spitalfields murders - they are lousy suspect as long as we can only prove that they had an address in the area.

Somebody who is present alone at one of the murder scenes at remove in time when the murder has been perpetrated, however, is automatically a person of very great interest. Thatīs what happens when you are found with a murder victim.

And if it can later be proven that he is logically a geographical fit for the rest of the murders too, then he will more than likely become a suspect on those grounds only, and rightfully so.

Do you object to this in any way, John?

No, Christer, I wouldn't object. Clearly being found with the victim makes him ay least a person of interest, although the police, of course, didn't consider him a suspect.

I'm convinced that the perpetrator came from the Whitechapel area, whether they had links to the streets where the murders took place or not. So Lechmere remains a candidate on that basis.

Linking Lechmere directly to several murder sites strengthens the case against him. But take Kosminski, for instance? Wasn't he living near Berner Street? And, of course, he was apparently seen with Eddowes by Mitre Square!

[Abby Normal]

He isn't a suspect. That's the circular reasoning going on.

If Cross is a suspect, then here is a better suspect who is a JtR murder witness. This person lived in the hot zone, closer to all the murders, found a JtR victim, left the body without reporting it and worked as a cab driver, meaning access to everywhere in Whitechapel, murders sites or not.

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost....&postcount=865

no Lech wasn't a suspect at the time, like hutch and so many of the other witnesses who could have been the murderer. apparently detective work hadn't advanced to the point where all witnesses who could have physically been the murderer needed to be cleared like we know now and is common practice.


But hutch IS a modern suspect, like so many of the others , and not a bad one at that.

but yes Crow is EXACTLY the type of person that would need more looking at. That being said he has no potential red flags to the extent that Lech (or hutch or richardson) has.

I have no idea where your coming up with "circular reasoning" either.

[Fisherman]

No, Christer, I wouldn't object. Clearly being found with the victim makes him ay least a person of interest, although the police, of course, didn't consider him a suspect.

I'm convinced that the perpetrator came from the Whitechapel area, whether they had links to the streets where the murders took place or not. So Lechmere remains a candidate on that basis.

Linking Lechmere directly to several murder sites strengthens the case against him. But take Kosminski, for instance? Wasn't he living near Berner Street? And, of course, he was apparently seen with Eddowes by Mitre Square!

Well, that Mitre Square "sighting" builds on the idea that Lawende ID:s Kos afterwards. Others will have it that Joseph Hyam Levy saw Jacob Levy in company with Eddowes.
None of these matters are resolved to any degree of certainty. And - correct me if Iīm wrong - the address near Berner Street was in Providence Street, which IS quite near. But did Kosminski live there? Do we know? And maybe I am counting wrong, but I make that one (1) link only.

Lechmere remains the geographically most viable suspect, with proven, very likely or at least viable links to the sites and areas. For some reason, this is contested but noone can come up with a candidate to trump him. Itīs more of a principle, apparently.

[Jon Guy]

If Cross is a suspect, then here is a better suspect who is a JtR murder witness. This person lived in the hot zone, closer to all the murders, found a JtR victim, left the body without reporting it and worked as a cab driver, meaning access to everywhere in Whitechapel, murders sites or not.

Crow walked through his door at 3.30am after finishing work, meaning that unlike Cross, he was free at the relevant hours.

[Abby Normal]

Crow walked through his door at 3.30am after finishing work, meaning that unlike Cross, he was free at the relevant hours.

that's an interesting point Jon. do we know if he was married, with kids?
Do we know where he worked?


but come to think of it, how likely would it be that he would kill someone literally on his door step?

[Batman]

but come to think of it, how likely would it be that he would kill someone literally on his door step?

How likely would it be for a serial killer to hang around a body awaiting the arrival of a witness coming down the road to ID him and make an alibi?

My position on this would be "highly unlikely". Yet if people want to use certain unrealistic criteria for Cross, then we can apply it here also.

[Jon Guy]

that's an interesting point Jon. do we know if he was married, with kids?
Do we know where he worked?

Hi Abby
All we know about Crow is that as a child he was in and out of institutions for starting fires, bed wetting and animal cruelty. He then worked as a surgeons assistant but was dismissed for stealing ladies body parts from cadavers. Apart from that we know nothing.


... seriously all we know is that he was Whitechapel born, aged 21 years and a cab driver.
In the 1891 census he`s living with mum and dad (whether or not he was living them in George Yard 1888 I don`t know)

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby
All we know about Crow is that as a child he was in and out of institutions for starting fires, bed wetting and animal cruelty. He then worked as a surgeons assistant but was dismissed for stealing ladies body parts from cadavers. Apart from that we know nothing.


... seriously all we know is that he was Whitechapel born, aged 21 years and a cab driver.
In the 1891 census he`s living with mum and dad (whether or not he was living them in George Yard 1888 I don`t know)

OK-thanks Jon

[Busy Beaver]

Lechmere/Cross obviously wasn't paying too much attention whilst walking to walk, because he of all people had the better chance of seeing the murderer walking/running away from the scene. Which way would the Ripper have gone to avoid bumping into Lech or Paul??