Cross Theory II

[Ginger]

For the life of me, I don't understand why people have such venom against the Cross/Lechmere theory. Is it because the progenitors of the theory are familiar posters and not distant historical figures?

I don't think Cross was the Ripper, but I think he's more viable than most of the other named suspects we discuss here. I certainly don't see anything in the facts entirely ruling out Cross.

This. I don't think Cross is at all likely to have been the Ripper, but I'm taken aback at the amount of venom directed at those advocate him as a suspect.

[Lechmere]

I would put a lot of it down to pre-existing rivalries between posters – or perceived rivalries by some.

Further, he is a different sort of suspect who has to be considered using different disciplines than most others. For example few suspects are discussed with respect to their behaviour at the crime scene or any detail gone into as to how they would actually have committed any of the crimes.
Hutchinson is a bit over the Kelly murder.
I can’t off the top of my head think of others.
I think this unfamiliarity is the cause of much rancour.
Some ‘suspects‘ are just suspects as they were alive at the time and were mad or violent.
Other just because they were named by a policeman as being under some form of suspicion at some time – which I think is almost a sure sign of innocence!

Also because Lechmere was always there and always should have been given proper consideration as suspect due to his role, and the various aspects he was involved in (which you can prefer to give innocent explanations to), I think some are uncomfortable at never having given him proper consideration before and see it as a challenge, otherwise his candidature could be regarded as blot on their escutcheon.

I think people with knowledge and interest in crime but who are not hardened 'Ripperologists', are more favourable or open to the Lechmere theory – which is perhaps as would be expected.

I enjoy debating other suspects – vigorously sometimes. I hope I do it good naturedly and don’t accuse rival theorists of being improper or whatever.
Some ‘rival suspect’ theorists are uncomfortable with this and regard it as some manner of ungentlemanly conduct on my part and therefore invalid – due to me having my own rival favoured suspect. I hear this again and again.

Some may object to Lechmere cropping up off topic in other threads – but I would argue that he is invariably brought into those threads by people hostile to his candidacy.

Some may argue that Lechmere theorists don’t concede points and surrender on certain aspects. This is because those aspects are arguable. I don’t think (unless carelessly in the middle of heated debate) Lechmere theorists say that things must have been their way, when events can be interpreted in two different ways – and do not create new imagined ‘facts’. I see accusations of this but having a set put position for Lechmere is no different from theorists who support other suspects as their culprit.
There is a lot of double standards and hypocrisy involved.

[Damaso Marte]

The truth is, we don't know the security situation at Pickfords. We don't know how many other people were there at 4 AM, we don't know how much privacy he would have had. Likewise, we don't really know when Chapman was murdered and while I hold the orthodox view many people believe in an earlier time.

None of this is evidence against Crossmere, but it means that we can't entirely dispose of him. I think Crossmere is a much more legitimate candidate than Druitt or Maybrick, both of whom have supporters who post here and who are treated more favorably than Lechmere or Fisherman are. This is inexcusable.

(For full disclosure, I fall in the "the murderer's name is mentioned nowhere on Casebook" camp. I think the Ripper was somebody very much like Aaron Kosminsky, but not Aaron Kosminsky. But that's just, like, my opinion man.)

[Ginger]

The truth is, we don't know the security situation at Pickfords. We don't know how many other people were there at 4 AM, we don't know how much privacy he would have had.

For what it's worth, from 1865 until 1905, when a new gas-mantle lighting system was installed, Broad Street Station was notorious for its poor lighting. Presumably the area operated by Pickford's would not have been any better.

[Harry D]

This. I don't think Cross is at all likely to have been the Ripper, but I'm taken aback at the amount of venom directed at those advocate him as a suspect.

More chance of it being Crossmere than Tumblety, Kelly et al, imo. In fact, he fits into my profile quite nicely as the kind of guy who knew the area well, wasn't even a blip on the police radar, and quickly slipped back into anonymity. And of course, unlike the rest of them, he was actually found at the scene of the crime.