Chas Lechmere/Cross/Crass/Brass/Glass/etc

[Abby Normal]

I'm not a proponent of the Lechmere/Cross theory, but as I understand it the proponents make three claims:

(1) Lechmere was literally found standing over a dead body
(2) Lechmere gave a "false" name to the police
(3) The canonical 5 + Tabram were murdered along direct routes between Lechmere's home, work, and parent's house

IMO, this is an indication that Ripperology has entered a decadent era: with no new facts likely to come out anytime soon, the science is collapsing on itself, and we are turning on the facts we have: witnesses now become suspects.

You see it elsewhere too: posters here now routinely accuse the man who stopped to take a piece of leather off his shoe of killing Chapman.

Hi DM
Actually
suspects like Mann, sickert and Maybrick indicate a decline in ripperology. Grasping at straws and/or putting forth a controversial/famous person.
At least Lech has some connection to the murders. He is exactly the type of person that should be checked out more. Actual physical connection to the case-proximity to a victim, several possible red flags in his behavior etc. These are the types of individuals that need more research on.

Richardson on the other hand, while the is the type that fits this category and is worth looking into, is several rungs down the ladder , in terms of viability as a suspect IMHO because he never claimed to be near, nor was he seen near, a victim.

[Mr Lucky]

I'm looking forward to reading more about Mr. Lucky's alternative Cross theory. Perhaps he could start an 'Alternative Cross Thread'.

Hi Caz

So, what do you do, when you’re ready to go public with your theory ? What happens?
Do you just say this is my idea , and produce a list of what you think ?

What happens if you have a theory about say a ‘painter in France, pretending to be a doctor’ but some one else had a theory about the same painter, but their theory is a bit ropey, aren’t you better off writing it up in a formal manner, rather than posting it up on the internet ?

But the biggest problem I would have with any case against Cross probably concerns what possible motivation he - as the ripper - would have had for hanging around for Paul to arrive on the scene and drawing direct attention to his own murderous handiwork.

This doesn't even begin to make any sense when compared to the infinitely preferable alternative of putting a safe distance between himself and his victim before anyone else could even appreciate that a crime had been committed.

I think that may have been the plan, that’s why that place was chosen, it’s in the dark and both approaches are lit up so that no matter which way some one approached they would be seen coming, and the in turn would not be able to see into the gloom and see the killer, as he ran the other way (This hasn’t any thing to do with the killer being Cross; for example, it’s why Paul says many had been knocked down and robbed at that spot. Just a dangerous location)

Hot smoke and steam, pluthering out of the 3.7 from Newcross, that’s what caused the problem for Cross, by the time it clears, he can see Robert Paul and he’s only 40 yards away!

He wouldn’t know what Paul had seen , but would see Paul hurrying towards him. What should he do? As soon as he starts to run Paul could have started shouting, there are police and watchmen nearby.

If Paul had asked any awkward questions, and Cross was close enough, Cross could have killed him, he's got a knife handy.

Staying was possibly the best option he had.

RE -Knife - The area was searched for a weapon, and none were found, so why didn’t the killer discard it as he left the scene, if that was the sensible thing to do. Perhaps we should look for some one who didn’t have the opportunity to?

Best wishes

[caz]

Alternate Title

Thanks Lynn, Frank and Steve.

I'm looking forward to reading more about Mr. Lucky's alternative Cross theory. Perhaps he could start an 'Alternative Cross Thread'.

But the biggest problem I would have with any case against Cross probably concerns what possible motivation he - as the ripper - would have had for hanging around for Paul to arrive on the scene and drawing direct attention to his own murderous handiwork.

This doesn't even begin to make any sense when compared to the infinitely preferable alternative of putting a safe distance between himself and his victim before anyone else could even appreciate that a crime had been committed.

Love,

Caz
X

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Frank

Maybe we should go and suspect him eh, Dave - he could have hid in the side street next to Brown & Eagle's, some 20 yards away from the crime spot when he heard Cross approach...

We might as well mate...as far as I can see there's no more or less against him than there is against Cross...in short, nuffink.

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

"no evidence, just supposition" is true of every single suspect we've ever discussed. Stop applying double standards to the argument for Lechmere.

Damaso,

Where is the double standard? Joe said that there is 'no evidence, just supposition' against Lechmere, He doesn't say that the same isn't true of other suspects.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Steve S]

Agreed all around, Caz. I couldn't have said it any more eloquently (never can).

The best,
Frank

Ditto...This is becoming a rather silly Bandwagon..........

[FrankO]

Additionally, anyone who could trust his own ability to think on his feet and con two strangers, one a police officer, in those circumstances (with the murder weapon still on him, presumably, and no certainty in the darkness that he had avoided any bloodstains) would surely have been streetwise enough to avoid such a precarious situation in the first place.

If Cross was the killer, with a mind to do it all again with knobs on the following weekend, he could so easily have ruined everything for himself by attracting all that early attention, when all he had to do was walk calmly on down Buck's Row, discarding the knife if he thought it wiser, and never look back. Job done.

Agreed all around, Caz. I couldn't have said it any more eloquently (never can).

The best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Yet Paul by his own admission pulled down Nicholls clothing -

Maybe we should go and suspect him eh, Dave - he could have hid in the side street next to Brown & Eagle's, some 20 yards away from the crime spot when he heard Cross approach...

[lynn cates]

experiment

Hello Dave. Thanks. The wounds would likely be discernible only in stronger light, or induced from visible blood. He did not know she was dead, but disjunctively that she was drunk OR dead. Skirts seem an easy item to spot.

Perhaps one could place a store mannikin, with skirts raised, on a floor--the light approximating Buck's Row? Then see what can be seen.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Dave.

"so just how did Paul know she was indecently displayed"

Thought this was an allusion to her skirts being up?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn

So just how much could Paul see - he couldn't see her throat was cut, he couldn't see any abdominal wounding, he couldn't see in fact she was dead, but he could see her skirts were up...is that it?

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

nub

Hello Caroline.

"If Cross was the killer, with a mind to do it all again with knobs on the following weekend, he could so easily have ruined everything for himself by attracting all that early attention, when all he had to do was walk calmly on down Buck's Row, discarding the knife if he thought it wiser, and never look back. Job done."

See, in my mind, this is the whole nub of the matter.

Well spoke!

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

skirting the issue

Hello Dave.

"so just how did Paul know she was indecently displayed"

Thought this was an allusion to her skirts being up?

Cheers.
LC

[DGB]

Also, I believe Lechmere said at the inquest that Polly's clothes initially made him believe she had been 'outraged'.

I can't imagine he would admit at the inquest that - not only were the clothes in a different arrangement when he found her - but in a much worse and incriminating arrangement.

DavidB

[caz]

As, among other things, I don’t see how Cross could have known/been so foreseeing that everything would work out exactly the way he wanted/needed, I don’t see reason either to believe Cross was Nichols’ killer – although he could have been.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Well said.

Additionally, anyone who could trust his own ability to think on his feet and con two strangers, one a police officer, in those circumstances (with the murder weapon still on him, presumably, and no certainty in the darkness that he had avoided any bloodstains) would surely have been streetwise enough to avoid such a precarious situation in the first place.

If Cross was the killer, with a mind to do it all again with knobs on the following weekend, he could so easily have ruined everything for himself by attracting all that early attention, when all he had to do was walk calmly on down Buck's Row, discarding the knife if he thought it wiser, and never look back. Job done.

Love,

Caz
X

[Cogidubnus]

Well put indeed, Colin. I would add that, at least for Fisherman, his suspicion seems to have started with the fact that the victim’s dress was left to cover at least most of her abdominal wounds, something that occurred in none of the following cases.

Yet Paul by his own admission pulled down Nicholls clothing - presumably to afford her some decency - which, by disturbance to the rump and legs, would probably have affected the way the body was presented

All the best

Dave

PS It was so dark the throat and abdomen wounds couldn't be seen ...so just how did Paul know she was indecently displayed? I'd contend it could only be by recognising what he'd touched...or worse...