Cross Theory II

[Fisherman]

I thought it might be an idea to revive this thread in view of recent comments regarding the 'Lechmere was Jack the Ripper' theory.

Those proposing the Nichols inquest witness Charles Lechmere (Cross) as Jack the Ripper seem to have been convinced by the fact that the 1888 press reports and the police reports refer to him as Charles Cross and not Lechmere, his given name. This they regard as highly suspicious, they see it as Lechmere 'hiding' his true identity. They support the idea with suggestions that he deliberately lied both to the police and at the inquest, thus bolstering the suggestion that he was the murderer.

When addressing the Lechmere as the Ripper theory there are many points to be considered. For instance, the theory seems to demand that the police were never aware of his true identity and that they failed to properly investigate both him and his story. This, of course, can only be speculation as the majority of the contemporary documentation; his original statement, full details of the investigation, etc., are all missing.

In addition to the police documents, the inquest papers are also missing and cannot be assessed. That leaves only the various press reports of the time and they don't always agree. There are also many variables and unknown factors which would have had a bearing on the whole story.

There are, as you will perhaps be aware, around a hundred instances where the carmansīname was recorded, many of them accompanied by his own signature. That signature and that name was always Charles Allen Lechmere, apart from the one instance where he used the name Cross - in his contacts with the police relating to the Nichols murder.

Just like you say, there are unknown variables. We cannot know for sure that he did never sign himself Cross at other instances too, just as we cannot know whether he referred to himself as Cross in less formal contexts.

What we have is no information at all what he called himself colloquially, and we have around a hundred instances where his name was recorded. This is all. And we know that he called himself Cross when speaking to the police.

We know that it was common practice for many Eastenders to use aliases.

We know that Lechmere had had a stepfather named Cross.

We know it was and is common practice to lie to the police about your identity in order to avoid taking on the responsibility for criminal actions.

This sums up what we know about the name thing.

As for the name swap being "highly suspicious", my own take is that this is one of the parameters that can be regarded as suspicious about Lechmere. The extent to which the name swap is suspicious is hard to establish, and people will disagree over it.

However, when a person is examined as the possible culprit of a crime, the more details that surface, the more damning the overall picture becomes. If there has been a fire and if three people are hauled in, and it becomes clear that man number one had no flammable material on him as he was grabbed, man number two had a box of matches and man number three had a box of matches and a half-empty jar of petrol, then per definition, the third man is the one we will regard with greater suspicion, whereas the first man will be regarded as probably innocent. It applies, however, that he could still have been the arsonist, but thrown away whatever he lit the fire with after the deed.

The Cross name is in this respect a box of matches to me. Now, many people carry matches. But the other little bits involved in the case adds to the flammable material as we go along. The Mizen scam, the routes he would have walked to job and the corresponding murder sites, the timing, the pulled down clothes, the fact that Paul never said he heard Lechmere walking in front of him, the proximity between his motherīs lodgings and the Stride murder spot and the dumping place of the Pinchin Street torso, the fact that he took some twenty minutes to do a seven minute trek ... these things all add to the collection of flammable material.

Does it make for an open and shut case? No. We could meet the owner of a petrol station in the street at any given time, on his way to deliver samples of his petrol to clients.

In the end, though, the case for Lechmere has so much and so many details going for it that suspicion must cling to him, factually more so than in any other case we can make.

This is how I look upon it, and I welcome any discussion of the matter. Judging by your post, it is only an initial one, and you seemingly have more to discuss. If this is so, I am aware that you do so from an extremely knowledgeable position, speaking about the case generally. I will do what I can to provide whatever answers I can, and I hope that Edward will join the discussion too. It should make for a good discussion. We both know that any suspect can be defended, no matter how ridiculously bad the suspect is, as long as no conclusive evidence can rule the suspect out. This is why we have a thread where Vincent van Gogh is suggested as the Ripper, without anybody being able to disprove the whole thing (at least I think so, I donīt read the thread).

Lechmere is another proposition entirely, and he should - to my mind - be at the very top on the suspect list. But letīs see where we end up! Let me just say that this post will be my last post on the subject for some time, but I will check back tomorrow at the very latest. And I will alert Edward to the discussion!

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. The thread was originally created to promote Mr Luckyīs take on matters, but it will do nicely for a general discussion just the same!

[Stewart P Evans]

It will be seen...

It will be seen from the foregoing that, as with so many aspects of this case, timing is very important. In 1888 times given cannot be assumed to be very accurate. They were often estimated and should not be taken as precise. Yet we see that times are quoted as accurate by theorists even when the record casts doubt upon this. In the case of Lechmere/Cross and Paul we are generally given a time of 3.45 a.m. for the discovery of Nichols' body. And they were at the scene before the beat police constable, PC Neil. The police reports, however, state that PC Neil found the body at 3.45 a.m. (Swanson HO 144/221/A49301C ff129-132), 30 minutes after he had last passed the scene (when the body was not there) on his beat. PC Neil could not have been anywhere in sight of the murder scene when Lechmere/Cross, and then Paul, arrived and they must have been in Buck's Row for at least a few minutes. Thus it is not surprising to read in Inspector Abberline's report (MEPO 3/140 ff242-243) - "...about 3.40 a.m. 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, "carman" of 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green was passing through Buck's Row, Whitechapel (on his way to work) he noticed a woman lying on her back on the footway (against some gates leading into a stable yard) he stopped to look at the woman when another man (also on his way to work) names Robert Paul of 30 Foster St., Bethnal Green came up, and Cross called his attention to the woman, but being dark they did not notice any blood, and passed on with the intention of informing the first constable they met, and on arriving at the corner of Hanbury St. and Old Montague St. they met P.C. 55H Mizen and acquainted him of what they had seen, and on the Constable proceeding towards the spot he found that P.C. 97J Neil (who was on the beat) had found the woman and was calling for assistance.'

By taking the times given in the summary police reports as being the most accurate we find that they state the body was found by PC Neil at 3.45 a.m., thus meaning that the body was probably found by Lechmere/Cross around 3.40 a.m., allowing a few minutes for the discovery, Paul joining him, the conversation and looking at the body and eventual walk along the remainder of Buck's Row, before PC Neil's patrol along Buck's Row and discovery of the body after the two men had departed. As previously stated, timing simply cannot be exactly ascertained given the variables and caveats involved. All time, in my opinion, should be preceded by the qualifier 'about'.

[Abby Normal]

I thought it might be an idea to revive this thread in view of recent comments regarding the 'Lechmere was Jack the Ripper' theory.

Those proposing the Nichols inquest witness Charles Lechmere (Cross) as Jack the Ripper seem to have been convinced by the fact that the 1888 press reports and the police reports refer to him as Charles Cross and not Lechmere, his given name. This they regard as highly suspicious, they see it as Lechmere 'hiding' his true identity. They support the idea with suggestions that he deliberately lied both to the police and at the inquest, thus bolstering the suggestion that he was the murderer.

When addressing the Lechmere as the Ripper theory there are many points to be considered. For instance, the theory seems to demand that the police were never aware of his true identity and that they failed to properly investigate both him and his story. This, of course, can only be speculation as the majority of the contemporary documentation; his original statement, full details of the investigation, etc., are all missing.

In addition to the police documents, the inquest papers are also missing and cannot be assessed. That leaves only the various press reports of the time and they don't always agree. There are also many variables and unknown factors which would have had a bearing on the whole story.

Hi again
However, he was referred to as cross in all the news accounts correct? But all the other official documentation he signed as lechmere. I do find this somewhat odd, but of course could have a simple explanation such as he wanted to keep as anon as possible in the whole affair or that he was known as cross at pickfords and perhaps he just stuck with that when dealing with police.

[Stewart P Evans]

Mizen

Mizen was in the process of awakening persons, at different addresses, to get up for work ('knocking up') when approached by the two carmen. In his reported statement Paul said, "I saw one [police officer] in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead." Paul said that the woman had been lying there for some time as she was so cold and that "...it shows no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see." If we accept PC Neil's report, and there appears to be no reason why we shouldn't, he passed through Buck's Row every thirty minutes, and had last done so at 3.15 a.m., thirty minutes before discovering the body at 3.45 a.m. (just after Lechmere/Cross and Paul).

This pointed criticism of the police in the report is emphasized and was probably stressed by the newspaper as many of them indulged in attacking the police. A report of PC Mizen's inquest evidence carried in the Illustrated Police News of Saturday 8 September 1888 read as follows -
'At about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning, while he was at the corner of Hanbury-street and Baker's-row, a carman passing by, in company with another man, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row by a policeman. A woman is lying there." The witness then went to Buck's-row, and Police-constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. Nobody but Neil was with the body at that time. - In reply to a juryman, witness said that when the carman spoke to him he was engaged in knocking people up, and he finished knocking at the one place where he was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buck's-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else.'

From this it is obvious that the criticism of Mizen carried in the press report was generally known and was an uncomfortable factor for Mizen. Thus it is not strange to see that he tries to minimize his lack of immediate response in attending Buck's Row and also states that the carman had told him that there was already a police officer there (thus reducing the urgency) a fact of which neither Lechmere/Cross nor Paul were aware, and would certainly have not stated as Mizen suggested. An inquest juryman had obviously picked up on the point. Another report gave the exchange as follows, Juryman, "Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?" Mizen, "No; I finished knocking up one person." When Lechmere/Cross gave his evidence a juryman, presumably the same one, said, "Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?" Lechmere/Cross replied, "No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row," and this, of course, was a fact confirmed separately by Paul.

The Lechmere/Cross theorists turn this aspect around and say that Mizen was spoken to by Lechmere/Cross who told him that 'a fellow PC awaited his arrival.' The reason for this, they speculate, was that Lechmere was the killer and was 'still carrying the murder weapon on his person' and was therefore keen not to be searched and did not want to be 'forced back to the murder site'; 'that was why he invented a fictive PC, something that made Mizen accept that the carmen had already been cleared.' This idea obviously does not make sense. First Lechmere/Cross had plenty of time to run off when he heard Paul approaching, which he did not do and he even brought the situation to the attention of the other man. Secondly he could have left the scene in a different direction to Paul stating he would also look for a PC to alert, and thirdly he would hardly have told PC Mizen that there was another policeman already at the scene in front of Paul who would have immediately contradicted it. No, it is obvious that the claim that there was another PC with the body (which there was by the time Mizen arrived) suited Mizen in minimizing his lack of immediate action, which had already been prominently noted in the press and also, no doubt, by his superiors.

[Stewart P Evans]

Amazingly

The theorists then, amazingly, go on to claim that Lechmere/Cross gave the false surname of Cross instead of his real name to avoid identification. Many people, especially in Victorian times, used alternative names for many reasons. And, despite the name Lechmere appearing in all the surviving records (census, baptism, marriage, address/trade directories etc.) there may have been many reasons why Lechmere used (even for a short time) the surname of Cross, which was the name of his step-father of several years when he was young, and at which time he may well have adopted the name for a few years.

Although he gave the police the name Cross, he also gave his correct address and the name of his employers, surely an odd thing to do if he was trying to avoid identification. They would have had no trouble (and probably didn't) in tracing him. Indeed it might well be that he mentioned to Paul when they chatted as they walked away from the scene that he was also a carman and worked for Pickfords, thus allowing him to be identified as the other witness. Be that as it may, the inquest was open to the public and held in Whitechapel Road, and anyone attending could have recognized him and pointed out that his real name was Lechmere and not Cross.

The theorists, however, claim that the police failed to check him out, merely accepting what he said, despite the fact that he had been the first person upon a murder scene, such a person always being looked upon, initially, with some suspicion. And the investigation was headed up by the hugely experienced Abberline. The lack of full police and employer records of the time unfortunately makes it impossible to answer this one definitively.

The official written statement made by Lechmere/Cross has not survived, but who knows, it may have carried a police note to the effect that Lechmere wanted his (old) alternative surname to be used as he didn't want his family pestered by the press or anyone else. He wanted to avoid public identification. As we see, Paul was soon traced by the press and interviewed, so if this was Lechmere's reasoning it obviously worked. The report on Paul's interview started, '...Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement...", indicating that the press had got hold of his address and were waiting for him there in order to interview him.

[Mr Lucky]

PS. The thread was originally created to promote Mr Luckyīs take on matters, but it will do nicely for a general discussion just the same!

No it won't, why don't you post your nonsense somewhere else.

[Stewart P Evans]

Why...?

Why should a cart driver, already employed by Pickfords for many years, suddenly embark on a short killing spree, then stop suddenly and live out the rest of his life normally, eventually becoming a greengrocer with his own business, and dying peacefully as late as 1920 at the age of 71? It simply makes no sense.

However, having established the guilt of Lechmere/Cross our theorists go on to define him as a 'serial killer'. He was also responsible for the murder of Martha Tabram, murdered about 2.30 a.m. in George Yard Buildings, on 7 August, as it was 'at the approximate time' that he went to work (and on a varying route); as well as the murders of Chapman (8th September 1888) and Kelly (9 November 1888). With regard to Stride and Eddowes (30 September 1888) the time and location of the murders, rather inconveniently, do not tie in with Lechmere's assumed work pattern. Rather oddly, the theorists see this as 'confirmation of Lechmere's culpability'. They were committed on 'the night leading to Sunday [i.e. the early hours of Sunday morning], Lechmere's day off.' Of course Lechmere also knew the Berner Street area where he had grown up and Berner Street was 'a thoroughfare leading to Cable Street, where Charles Lechmere's mother and one of his daughters were living!' Pretty damning that, a definite indicator of his guilt.

The Mitre Square location is addressed by the fact that as he was disturbed in Berner Street he went seeking another victim and Mitre Square was 'alongside his old working route from James Street to Pickfords!' Well that just about seals it, he must have been guilty.

The old chestnut of Ripperologists being into making money with their speculation (how terrible) is aired, but now they have identified 'a rationally functioning, everyday, grey suspect' which 'is not something all Ripper researchers have wished for'. Oh, but never mind, Lechmere/Cross (complete with rough sack apron) 'actually has a glamorous family history, counting an archbishop and one of Admiral Nelson's closest men.'

However, because he had a 'waster' for a grandfather, 'who threw away his fortune' Charles Lechmere 'had good reason to feel a strong urge for revenge as he wandered the streets of the East End together with prostitutes, pimps and robbers, carrying the insight that he was made up of another material altogether than they were.' Now, let me get this straight, Lechmere's forebear threw away a fortune and 'in revenge' Lechmere brutally murdered a few down and out casual prostitutes as he was better than they were? No doubt, his urge for revenge sated after a few of these murders, he settled down to normal family and business life for the next thirty two years. And silly old Abberline, who failed to check his facts properly, missed this most elusive of 'serial killers'.

[caz]

I'm sorry, Stewart, but Cross threads are no place for a 'newbie' like you to come and talk common sense.

Believe me I tried to make similar observations myself, regarding the innocent reasons Lechmere could have had for using the name Cross, and why PC Mizen would have said what he did, but they were all shrugged off and excuses made for still finding the man's behaviour deeply suspicious, when all we know is that he found a murder victim and did the right thing by reporting it and attending the inquest. I don't know what else he was meant to do to show he was innocent, but then I don't suppose he thought he would ever need to do so.

I wonder if anyone will have a little rethink now it's you on the case? I do hope so.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr Lucky]

Having re-read the deluge of points raised by Stewart P Evans, I have to say that I agree with many of them, as they seem mainly to be directed at the other theory.

However, there is the following

It will be noted that this report has apparently been 'slanted' to increase Paul's importance as it does not mention the fact that Lechmere/Cross accompanied Paul and found the police officer (Mizen) with him.

Prior to what Cross said at the inquest on Monday, the only references to the two men who had found the body claim that the men separated. one source for this information was Robert Paul's "remarkable statement" he gave on his way home, the other source was the Star journalist, who was at the mortuary on Friday. Why would they both be 'slanting' this aspect of finding the body, what purpose would that serve I wonder.

[Fisherman]

Okay, then, letīs see what weīve got here.

We have an ex police officer with great insights into the Ripper case who makes jokes about the fact that the murder sites can be geographically coupled to Charles Lechmereīs route to work, to begin with.

There were two main thoroughfares to Pickfords from Doveton Street, and they were Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street. Tabram was killed alongside Old Montague Street at a time that might correspond with the time when Lechmere went to work, Nichols was killed in Buckīs Row, leading up to these two streets at the same rough hour, Chapman was killed along Hanbury Street, and - interestingly - may have been killed at around 4 o clock too if we are to listen to Phillips (Yes, Cadosch and Long may have been wrong, and Richardson changed his story by the looks of things), Stride was killed close to his mothers house at an earlier stage but on a Saturday night, Eddowes was killed along what would have been Lechmereīs old trek to his job, and Kelly was killed at a time that may also tally with Lechmereīs job trek.

But this is of no interest to an ex policeman. Instead, jokes are made about the proposition and it is said "Pretty damning that, a definite indicator of his guilt."

No, mr Evans, these factors are not definite indicators of guilt. They are only an establishing of the fact that there is now a suspect who we can easily see had very good reasons to be at these spots at the relevant hours. No other suspect can match that. So be my guest, and joke away - but it does you no favours in terms of applying practical thinking to what we know about the murders.

As for the timings of the events, no matter if we accept that Lechmere found the body at approximately 3.40 - we must still ask ourselves why a man behind time takes twenty minutes to walk a six or seven minute stretch.

You claim that the article Paul first spoke up in was slanted, and you apparently think this was done by the reporter. Maybe. But prove it? No. It could just as well be that Paul was quoted very fairly, and that he did the slanting all by himself.

Next up, about what I refer to as the Mizen scam:

"This idea obviously does not make sense. First Lechmere/Cross had plenty of time to run off when he heard Paul approaching, which he did not do and he even brought the situation to the attention of the other man. Secondly he could have left the scene in a different direction to Paul stating he would also look for a PC to alert, and thirdly he would hardly have told PC Mizen that there was another policeman already at the scene in front of Paul who would have immediately contradicted it. No, it is obvious that the claim that there was another PC with the body (which there was by the time Mizen arrived) suited Mizen in minimizing his lack of immediate action, which had already been prominently noted in the press and also, no doubt, by his superiors."

You know, apparently, that Lechmere had plenty of time to run off in Buckīs Row.
Myself, I donīt. I accept that Lechmere could have been very much grasped of what he did to Nichols, therefore missing to notice Paul until late in the process. Others tell me that Paul maybe had soft sole shoes, but that point works both ways in this case - if so, then THAT could have meant that Lechmere missed out. So there is no certainty - other than yours - either way, Iīm afraid.

Also, please note that Nichols clothing was pulled down over her wounds BEFORE Paul got to see her. Did the Ripper do that, before Lechmere came upon the scene? Why?

He brought Nichols to the other manīs attention - yes. And that may have been because he needed an alibi for whatever blood he had on him, just as has been stated before. For all we know, he may have contemplated killing Paul as he bent down, if he thought that Paul could become a troubling witness.

Mizen lied about what Lechmere had told him about the PC in place? I donīt think so. If his colleagues were as sceptical as you seem to think, and his superiors so much on their guard, why would they accept this lie from Mizenīs side - especially as Mizen must have anticipated that Lechmere and Paul would both deny it? Such a thing would only make matters worse for Mizen. It would thus be contraproductive. I wonīt call the suggestion ridiculous, though, since that will do the discussion no favours at all. But I will call it a bad suggestion.

"The official written statement made by Lechmere/Cross has not survived, but who knows, it may have carried a police note to the effect that Lechmere wanted his (old) alternative surname to be used as ..."

Pure conjecture, just as you admit yourself. Was the police in the habit of obliging requests like this? And would they STILL use the name Cross in their own internal reports? Were they that obliging too?

"Why should a cart driver, already employed by Pickfords for many years, suddenly embark on a short killing spree, then stop suddenly and live out the rest of his life normally, eventually becoming a greengrocer with his own business, and dying peacefully as late as 1920 at the age of 71? It simply makes no sense."

Then tell me what "sense" Dennis Rader makes to you? So little sense that he never existed? He embarked on a killing spree, and then retired to live an ordinary family life, something he managed to do for decades until his ego gave him away. Moreover, how do you know that it was just a "short killing spree"? If Lechmere lived until 1920, there are 32 years unaccounted for, years during which many women were killed in London. MacKenzie was one of them, Coles another, and there were many others in the years to come.
Must we accept that he only could kill by cutting necks and eviscerating? Or could he have wanted to try out other things, perhaps having gotten bored with his ascribed technique?
Or does that not make sense either?

"Now, let me get this straight, Lechmere's forebear threw away a fortune and 'in revenge' Lechmere brutally murdered a few down and out casual prostitutes as he was better than they were?"

But you donīt WANT to get it straight, do you?
If you had, you would have admitted that what I wrote in my article was that he had the additional potential motive of social revenge lust. It is a recognition of a tediously obvious thing, namely that some people have a tendency to despise others because they feel that they are below them in some sort of context; intellectually, morally etcetera.

But this simple fact does not suit your arguing. You instead choose to mock, and if you have to distort things to be able to do so, so be it.

I would have preferred a more balanced discussion, though.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

No it won't, why don't you post your nonsense somewhere else.

Because this was the thread Mr Evans chose to post on.

The best,
Fisherman

[Scott Nelson]

The 32 years Cross lived quietly after the murders until he died is brought up and as an objection to his being the Ripper. Dennis Rader is cited as an example of a serial killer who stopped, was dormant for years, and finally gave himself away. So Cross took his secret to the grave?

[Lechmere]

I don't know whether Lechmere did live peacefully for 32 years.
There were a whole series of unsolved deaths up to 1898 in areas he had close connections to.
Do you seriously think that all serial killers get caught, somehow locked up or die?
Is it impossible for them to stop - for whatever reason?

I don't here that objection raised to that semi ridiculous candidate Tumblety.

It is regrettable that a new thread wasn't stated for this discussion, which looks like will be a back to basics on Charles Lechmere.

[Abby Normal]

I think it would do a lot of good if the debaters and experts on this case familiarized themselves more and do more comparative analysis on the history of serial killers when making ther points on this case. On both sides.

Serial killers change, lie, involve themselves in the case, stop, lie dormant for years, change mo, have families, live apparently normal lives, etc.

Things they don't typically do if ever, is commit suicide, copycat or end up in insane asylums uncharged with there crimes.

Also, people need to realize that the police are neither idiots nor are they infallible. Witnesses are not all liers nor should they be beyond suspicion. The police files are littered with serial killers who were previously witnesses and or persons of interest.

Characters like hutch, Letch, McCarthy, bowyer, Richardson,etc. IMHO are exactly the type of characters that deserve more attention.Maybe not sexy like famous people or conspiracy theories but probably the most likely type where the culprit will be found. Average joes who were at the very least directly involved with the case and close to victims.

I also Beleive equal credence should be given to named police suspects and to persons of interest like koz, bury and chapman. The caveat being that these suspects, though fitting police theories, are after the fact suspects who have no direct evidence of being anywhere near the murder scenes. It's with this in mind you need to balance the evidence and assess the suspects.

It does no one in ripperology on either side whether expert or novice, researcher and or suspect theorist any good to belittle each other, be sarcastic, get personal with, and my personal peeve, threaten to take there ball and go home the second they are called out. Why not just keep an open mind and debate professionally?

A friend of mine once told me that the reason why Internet discussions usually devolve into bs is because we are not face to face. If we were having these discussions face to face (he used the ex. Of people who debate topics at a cocktail party)we would be much more respectful of each other. And I will be first to say I am guilty of it to but am trying to work on it.

[Wickerman]

Hi Abby.
Yes, I think you are right all around, in fact likely most posters would agree with you, until it comes to their own suspect.

Characters like hutch, Letch, McCarthy, bowyer, Richardson,etc. IMHO are exactly the type of characters that deserve more attention.

And 'yes' again, except your list should be much longer, numbering perhaps in the thousands. And that is where the likes of McCarthy, Lechmere, Bowyer, Richardson, etc. would be, one in ten thousand, and no more likely than one in ten thousand.

Having said that I do agree with the premise that 'Jack' was likely some unknown nobody who was never named. And may have even been brought in on suspicion, fingered by some neighbour, or busybody, but never seriously suspected by the police.

The main problem with a 'nobody' as your suspect is, you have nothing to show as evidence, just an ever increasing list of questions. And all that really demonstrates is the theorists lack of knowledge about their own suspect.

Questions do not make a 'nobody' into a killer. Though some try very hard to pull this deception over on the public.