Cross Theory II

[Fisherman]

I do apologise to 'Fisherman' if he found my posts insulting, I didn't intend them to be. They were merely in the 'spirit' of 'Lechemere's' posts on Tumblety.

However, this appears to be the depths that serious 'Ripperology' have now descended to and I am finished with it.

First and foremost: apology accepted.

I was disappointed by the tone in your post, yes. I find people sometimes seem to believe that Edward and I are one and the same, which we are not. We have cooperated to some extent, and we share the same suspect, but thatīs all. In consequence, I am not all that fond of being on the receiving end of any hostility that should have been directed another way.

There is an immense amount of hostility following in the tracks of any Lechmere debate, and that shrouds the points in fog, sadly. I would be very much more happy if the discussion could be kept at a less inflamed level - but have little hope of it. I am myself guilty of biting back when attacked in what I find an unfair manner, and that does nothing to help the matter either, of course.

I still think it is sad if you choose to leave the debate, since the points you brought up really deserve a better and deeper discussion. I will offer one suggestion for debating: The discrepancies inbetween how Lechmere and Mizen described the meeting between the carmen and the PC.

You make the assumption that Mizen invented the other PC, and brought him on stage in order to explain why he was late in going to Buckīs Row.

I donīt think that suggestion is a good one, since - as I said - Mizen testified before both Lechmere and Paul, who would both be in a position to refute the PC:s claims, thus exposing him as a liar. He would, to my mind, make matters very much worse by doing things this way.

Mizen said that he only finished knocking up an ongoing errand before leaving Buckīs Row. That would not have taken long - the odd second or two, perhaps. Why would he not settle for this version only? It would be his word against the carmenīs - and time is a factor that is sometimes hard to estimate. Saying "Yes, I did make the odd knock or two on that door, but then I left" and comparing it to Paulsī"It was a shame that he kept on knocking up people" would easily go down as a delaying of very few seconds, and it would not be possible to point to any lie.

The extra PC, though - that WOULD be exposed as a lie. There was no chance that the carmen would corroborate it if it was not true.

There is another point that may support both your view and mine - Mizen claims that the carman he spoke to only said that there was a woman lying in the street in Bucks Row, leaving out the potential seriosity of the matter.
When Lechmere speaks, he claims to have told Mizen that they could well have a casualty on their hands.

The discrepancy can speak for your version: Mizen played things down in retrospect, in order to explain why he made no rush.

It can also speak for my version: Lechmere never gave away how grave the errand could be, since he did not want to alert Mizen too much - better leave it as a routine errand with no sinister implications. And to ensure that it stayed that way, he said there was another PC in place. If that other PC had known that the woman had been killed, then the carmen would reasonably know that too. A PC would not conceal this and leisurely tell the carmen "Hey, boys, if you happen to see another PC this fine morning, why donīt you tell him to come around and see me here?"
So both versions function on this detail too.

Then what is there that may tell us who is right? Well, nothing conclusive - but there IS a useful pointer. Mizen says that "a" carman came up and spoke to him, a man that passed in company with another carman. At no stage does Mizen say that TWO carmen informed him what had happened - he says that just the one did.

Lechmere? He says that he AND Paul spoke to the PC.

Letīs say that Lechmere was truthful about this, and that he was innocent. Why, then, would Mizen keep quiet about the fact that it was two carmen that spoke to him, and not just the one?

Mizen could not hope to explain any tardiness on his behalf by withholding THAT information, could he?

But Lechmere, on the other hand, could obscure the fact that he alone spoke to Mizen, and that he told him about the other PC with Paul out of earshot - if this was what happened. And I believe it was the exact thing that went down.
If Lechmere could produce a picture where it was impossible for him to disinform Mizen due to Paul being within earshot and able to contradict any lie he produced, he stood to gain a lot.

And what happens when Paul witnesses? Does he say that he himself spoke to the PC? From the inquest: "The man (Lechmere; my remark) walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman."

So no, Paul says nothing about himself speaking to Mizen. The only man that does so is Lechmere. One has to wonder why.

If you wish to bite and give your view, Iīd be grateful. If not, I fully recognize that you have announced your withdrawal from the discussion. I believe option one will take us a lot longer than option two, but it is your own call.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

I admire your attempt to review this subject Stewart,

I trod these paths some 12 months ago, laying out the same points as you have but not as eloquently or as in much as specific detail as you.

It seems as if fact and logic are things of the past, we truly are dinosaurs.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

'Ripperology'

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.

As you may have guessed your theorizing fails to impress me. 'Profiling' impresses me even less.

It is your posts that prompted my analysis of the Cross/Lechmere material. You describe Tumblety as a 'semi ridiculous candidate', and that has been the tone of your past posts. Tumblety was a serious suspect named by ex-Chief Inspector Littlechild. As a suspect he has a historical foundation, something which Cross/Lechmere doesn't.

I am not really interested in arguing any further on this subject so I shall leave you to your online critics. I do apologise to 'Fisherman' if he found my posts insulting, I didn't intend them to be. They were merely in the 'spirit' of 'Lechemere's' posts on Tumblety.

However, this appears to be the depths that serious 'Ripperology' have now descended to and I am finished with it.

[Scott Nelson]

I don't know whether Lechmere did live peacefully for 32 years.
Do you seriously think that all serial killers get caught, somehow locked up or die?

Yes, almost all of them do. With their past revealed.

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman and Lechmere,

Perhaps ...and this is in no way meant as an attack on Cross...perhaps you could take all your information regarding Cross and create a daily routine on the days of the murders that does not include murdering prostitutes. This can't be done with Tumblety or Kosminski, but it could be done with Druitt, Cross, and perhaps Hutchinson. What happens inevitably in these threads is each idea of culpability is discarded or refuted by the critics. That's an easy thing to do for all suspects because the critics don't have to build a case, only tear it down. I respectfully suggest that by building a routine of normalcy, you can find your own openings for murder and maybe, dare I say, find the openings too narrow for passage.

We should all do this before we favor a suspect.

Mike

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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'.

[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.