Cross Theory II

[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.

[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.

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[Damaso Marte]

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.

[Lechmere]

On a different thread - this one really was for Mr Lucky's theory.

[Scott Nelson]

I'm serious. It's an interesting scenario.

[Lechmere]

Oh you are awful

[Scott Nelson]

Please go into his possibly setting up Paul for the Chapman murder a bit more.

[Lechmere]

Patrick
Just for the record, I did not say that Charles Lechmere's terribly (to you) normal and humdrum background was the basis for saying there is more against this man than other suspects.

[Lechmere]

I keep being distracted and I think I may have given away the ending.
I think I mentioned it once but I'm not sure if anyone noticed.

[Sally]

Write the book, Ed.

It's the only way.

[Patrick S]

This conversation is no longer productive. We're rehashing old points. I'll conclude my end by saying this: I think that you have some unstated (at least on this thread) desire to believe Cross was the Whitechapel murderer. I say this because rational thought simply does not lead one to conclude that this man should even be a 'suspect'. You listed a fairly typical - for the time -background/family history and state that this is more than we have against any other suspect. While that seems reasonable you, it seems unreasonable - to me at least - as there is no suggestion that Cross was ever violent toward women, had some hatred of women, was violent toward anyone, was unstable, angry, ill humoured, lacking a sense of humor, ill tempered when his shoes weren't shined just so, nothing. Cross found a body. He was a witness. He testified at an inquest. You take circumstances and facts, view them through a lens clouded by the passage of nearly a century and a half, don't see all the answers, and see a killer.

Discussions like these are only interesting if they lead somewhere. This one has led me to no longer have interest in Cross as a possible JtR. Most of the facts that have led me to do so have come from you, on this thread. These same facts have led you to be rock solid your belief that Cross was the killer. Thus, we are finished. I appreciate all the information you've shared here. I wish you luck in your future research into Lechmere/Cross. I know you agree that no one can be certain of anything when it comes to this case. Thus, I'd be thrilled to learn more compelling evidence with repsect to Cross and would be happy to take a closer look at him should such evidence prove compelling. My opinion is that the facts as we understand them now are not only not compelling, they are completely uninteresting in terms of indicting Cross as anything other than a guy who found a body on his way to work.

Good luck.

[Lechmere]

Patrick
You keep asking what else do I have? I listed quite a lot.
More than is proposed for any other suspect I can think of, most of whom are based around one or two factors.

As you seem to have once recognised, being found very close to a dead body and being fleetingly involved in the police investigation are in themselves traits that one might normally regard as grounds for suspicion.
You may seek to tell me that this criteria would fit most of the passengers on board the Mayflower, but I doubt this would be the case in the real world.

I find it somewhat odd that you accuse me of mental gymnastics over use of statistics when I haven’t quoted any statistics.
But let me simplify matters.
I can think of several serial killers off the top off my head who had seemingly stable family backgrounds, who had children and who had steady jobs.
I cannot think of any off the top of my head who were diagnosed as being psychopaths before their capture. It probably is the case that some have been – so I would not exclude the possibility. It is certainly the case that numerous serial killers have evaded capture (at least for their serial crimes).
So in the real world it is not that unusual for a serial killer outwardly be a normal family man, while it is unusual for it to be known at the outset that a serial killer as a psychopath.

Regarding Lechmere’s encounter with Paul and Paul’s impression he was about to be mugged.
Do you think that Paul would have entertained such fears if he had been approached by a woman, a dwarf, an old man or a boy? I would suggest not.
So it was not just the location – Buck’s Row – that precipitated Paul’s fears. Lechmere was a not a gang – he was a lone individual. It was a one-on-one situation. I think it is axiomatic that there was something about Lechmere’s demeanour, his body language or whatever, that, combined with the location and the hour, made Paul apprehensive.

I do not suggest that Paul was ‘in on it’, by agreeing to abandon a supposedly unconscious woman.
I would suggest that the meeting – with Paul fearing he was going to get mugged, established a hierarchy of dominance between the two and that he followed Lechmere’s lead – which can be observed in their subsequent interaction.
By the way they didn’t know there was a policeman near-by nor that they would definitely bump into one after they left Polly lying there.

The disagreement between Lechmere and Mizen suggests Lechmere lied to a policeman immediately after leaving the dead body. Or if you want to be kind to Lechmere you could believe that Mizen lied, or that he was mistaken.
The reason Lechmere would have lied – if he was guilty – was to avoid Mizen searching him and taking his details.

You also seek to excuse Lechmere by saying he may have told a white lie about being late for work. Maybe. Lying about such things in a major murder investigation is a little risky though if you are innocent. This is on top of the dispute between Lechmere and Mizen over the nature of their conversation and of course Lechmere eventually turning up and calling himself Cross.
I don’t expect your white lies will be revisited by anyone in 100 years’ time as I’m guessing you didn’t lie while being involved in a major murder investigation.

So you suggest perhaps Lechmere didn’t have any other clothes than those he wore to work?
Unlikely. I have a picture of one of his sons of a few years later dressed very smartly.
Also Charles Lechmere opened a business a few years later so he must have had more money than your average East Ender.
He also turned up wearing his apron. Was that part of his smartest outfit?

Regarding the supposed ‘eye-witnesses’. Most of their descriptions are so vague as to be able to fit Lechmere (I also have a picture of him in his later years) so I could employ them in support of this claim. However to do so would be a bit hypocritical on my part as I do believe them to be innately untrustworthy as evidence and I regard suspect theories based around claims that such and such a suspect fitted such and such a description as being thread bare.

You can abide by the canon in making Nichols the first. I put no faith in the canon.
The notion that all the blood spray from the wound to Nichols’ neck went onto the clothing of the perpetrator is a new one on me.
The proposal that not a drop went anywhere else is remarkable. His trousers must have been a real mess. He would have dripped blood all the way down the street – in whatever direction he fled.
I think this possibility can be discounted.