A new critique of the Cross/Lechmere theory from Stewart Evans

[Lechmere]

Libel?
Do you know what libel is?
I said you proposed Barnett and you have confirmed it.

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Lechmere,
firstly, 2 n's

secondly, I don't make the rules, you are allowed to do what you want. If you want to bluster and call out other theories that's fine. I was merely pointing out that it might make your case seem mere solid if it were backed up with facts rather than repetitive speculation that was the same regardless of whatever anyone else said followed by laughing at other theories and poking fun at people

that's all

[Phil H]

Libel?
Do you know what libel is?
I said you proposed Barnett and you have confirmed it.

I have NEVER proposed Joe Barnett as JtR - which is what you meant. You misrepresented my views, deliberately, in print (which is what libel means).

Given my position, which is simply that MJK may have been a domestic, I can hardly have been "hypocritical" in critiquing your and Fisherman's proposal (I won't honour it with the word theory).

There is no point in discussing anything with you, because you neither listen nor are, evidently, interested in balanced views.

However, the fact that your case is non-existent is now evident - your violent response indicates that.

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

Behind all Fisherman's mindless and inconsequential bluster, there is a serious point to be resolved.

This is interesting. You will find my comment on the "blustering" business in my signing off lines of this post. But donīt sneak-peak!

"...historical suspects ... need to be understood and researched because they are part of the record - that is the way history and historians operate world-wide and professionally"

Good. Then I propose Lechmere. He is part of the record.

"... plucking a character - whether included in contemporary reports or just contemporary with the murders, and attempting to make a case against them."

This is hypocritical nonsense, I fear. What you are saying is that there is no need to make a case against Kosminski et al since the police already made that case a century ago.
That wonīt hold up as long as you donīt know the particulars.

You are doing the same thing as the Hutchinsonians do when they celebrate the Sue Iremonger verdict on the witness signatures pertaining to Hutchinson: accepting that the verdict is a viable one in spite of the fact that we donīt know which signatures she looked at.
Is believing in authority as a religion. Itīs thumbsucking.

The weakness of the case is underlined by the fact that for about 100 years or more no one ever discussed Cross as a suspect.

And the strength of the Kosminski and Tumblety arguments lie in the fact that they too were forgotten for the longest time, I take it?
Do think before you type - it helps immensely.

"you have to rubbish serious scholarship because it provides no comfort or support for your arguments"

Serious scholarship? To look away from the fact that Lechmereīs road to work coincides with all the victims? Serious scholarship?

To disregard the name swop? Serious scholarship?

The pomposity of that argument is immeasurable.

Hence my pointing out the two kinds of suspect here as a warning to newcomers to the field.

Iīm sure you are doing a world of good, Phil - may the followers line up and all be given three forms to sign up on, one white, one yellow and one blue, all of them listing the social security numbers of the applicants.

If the sort of arguments that Fisherman inclies to are accepted widely then any standards and quality disappears.

Yep. Letīs not care about the proximity between Lechmereīs work trek and the murder spots, letīs look away from the coinciding timing, letīs disregard him being found by the victim, letīs forget the pulled down dress, the Mizen scam, the appearance in court in working clothes, the omission to give his address in open court, the nameswop .. letīs ditch all that, and return to TRUE form and TRUE SCHOLARSHIP!!!

And we all know whoīs the man when it comes to teaching THAT discipline!

It is a commonplace of the internet to confuse two concepts:

1) everyone has an equal right to express their ideas; and

2) all ideas are equal.

Number 1 may be true. Only fools believe number 2. The views of a neophyte clearly need to be scrutinised carefully, whereas a student of 20 years standing has greater credibility. The newcomer may have insights, the experienced scholar is likely to be more aware of the evidence and its pitfalls.

Yeah? Iīve studied the case for thirty years - where does that land me ...?

Fisherman ... seeks to denigrate all that went before to give life to his ephemeral theory.

Any theory has to stand on itīs own legs, Phil. And if those legs wobble under a suspect because no evidence can be found to support him but a statement from a policeman that other policemen distinctly denied, then itīs not my fault. You are free to support any suspect you like - even Barnett, in fact - but the right to belittle, to scorn, to criticize and to laugh at suspects is not something you have some sort of monopoly on.

Don't be fooled. Look at what he is saying; consider the evidence and weight its authority and provenance. Mixing chalk and cheese creates a sandwich but one not nice to eat. That is what Fisherman, IMHO, is offering.

You know, Phil, I have heard things like these before. In sermons from the 19:th century: "Beware of the devil, least he devours you and let you roast in eternity". And then we grab a whip and drive Belsebub out, eh ...?

"Blustering", was it? Me oh my.

All the best, Phil - really!
Fisherman

[Phil H]

M"...historical suspects ... need to be understood and researched because they are part of the record - that is the way history and historians operate world-wide and professionally"

Fisherman: Good. Then I propose Lechmere. He is part of the record.

Which just proves my point - you don't READ posts - you simply assume they mean what you want them to. You ignore the key words in my sentence - "historical suspects" - which Lechmere never was. A point which i was at pains to make.

Since you clearly ignore my posts, I'll read no more of yours.

[Lechmere]

Sorry Jenni - I as using my phone to post - always dangerous.

[Jenni Shelden]

no worries, who am I to talk

[Fisherman]

M[B]

Since you clearly ignore my posts, I'll read no more of yours.

You know, Phil - that may well be the best call youīve made all night. I thoroughly recommend such an approach on your behalf.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

I thoroughly recommend such an approach on your behalf.

Only because I expose the weakness and the flatulence of your theory all too effectively Fishyman.

Don't get the idea you are off the hook.

Every post you write simply throws into stronger relief the puerile nature of your approach and conclusions.

[Lechmere]

The first issue raised by Stewart Evans, (Post 1 above) is as follows:
‘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.’

This is expanded upon in Post 5:
‘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.’

If I may summarise – hopefully doing justice to the case made by Stewart Evans – he feels that it is highly likely that the police would have thoroughly checked Charles Lechmere’s bona fides as he was the first person at the murder scene and as such should be looked upon with a degree of suspicion. Furthermore an experienced policeman like Abberline would not have overlooked this.
Stewart Evans concedes that there is nothing in the record to support his view, which accordingly is pure conjecture. It is based on what he thinks the police should have done and so accordingly what they would have done.

But is there anything in the contemporary record to support the countervailing conjecture, namely that the police failed to investigate Lechmere? I think there is quite a lot.

Firstly the negative. There is not the slightest hint in any of the remaining police records nor in any press report that Lechmere was closely questioned. It might be said that this is an unfair argument.

However we have quite a lot of information available that details who the police did interview in the early stages of the Whitechapel Murders - and who they suspected, and the directions their thinking was taking them.

Who was interviewed, interrogated or suspected?

Regarding the Nichols murder Inspector Helson reported on 7th September (MEPO 3/140, ff. 235-8) with respect to her husband William Nichols, ‘There are no grounds for suspecting him to be the guilty party’. To reach this conclusion it would seem likely that William Nichols was investigated to some degree. This would be natural and sensible as most murders are ‘domestics’.

Initially it seems that it was thought that a High Rip type gang was responsible for murdering Nichols, along with the preceding attacks on Emma Smith and Martha Tabram. For example on 31st August the Evening News reported:

‘The officers engaged in the case are pushing their inquiries in the neighbourhood as to the doings of certain gangs known to frequent these parts, and an opinion is gaining ground amongst them that the murderers are the same who committed the two previous murders near the same spot. It is believed that these gangs, who make their appearance during the early hours of the morning, are in the habit of blackmailing these poor unfortunate creatures, and when their demands are refused, violence follows, and in order to avoid their deeds being brought to light they put away their victims.’

A similar press report was in the Home Office file on the case (HO 144/220/A49301B, f 179).
Some sort of press conference was held on the evening of 2nd September that was reported in a number of newspapers on 3rd September. The Times reported:

‘These facts have led the police to almost abandon the idea of a gang being abroad to wreak vengeance on women of this class for not supplying them with money. Detective-Inspectors Abberline, of the Criminal Investigation Department, and Detective-Inspector Helson, J Division, are both of opinion that only one person, and that a man, had a hand in the latest murder.’

Helson’s position on the matter was confirmed in his 7th September report where he stated:
‘careful search was conducted with a view to find any weapon that was used by the murderer or murderers (in all probability there was only one).’

‘Leather Apron’ in the shape of John Pizer was suspected at an early stage – possibly as early as 1st September and may have influenced Abberline and Helson’s opinions as quoted by the Times . Pizer also featured in Helson’s report of 7th September.

In the aftermath of Annie Chapman’s murder, Inspector Chandler reported (MEPO 3/140, ff. 9-11) that:
‘a special enquiry called for at Lodging Houses &c to ascertain if any men of a suspicious character or having blood on their clothing entered after 2 am 8th inst.’
Lodging House dwellers were now in the spotlight.
Pizer was found on 10th September and swiftly exonerated.
On 11th September Pizer was replaced as suspect no 1 by Jacob Isenschmid (MEPO 3/140, ff. 12-13).
On 13th September Isenschmid was detained.

On 14th September Abberline reported (MEPO 3/140, ff. 15-16) that Edward Stanley, Chapman’s sometime cohabitee, had been questioned. He also detailed that inquiries had been made at the London Hospital and that a man named Edward Mckenna had been detained.

Considerable efforts were also made to trace the origins of an envelope that bore the stamp of the Royal Sussex Regiment, that was found in the possession of Chapman.

Meanwhile further enquiries were made into Isenschmid who was now in the private Fairfield Road Lunatic Asylum… and who was also known as ‘Leather Apron’.
On 18th September Abberline (MEPO 3/140, ff. 24-5) said of Isenschmid:
‘he appears to be the most likely person that has come under our notice to have committed the crimes’.
On 19th September Helson reported (MEPO 3/140, ff. 29-31) on attempts to have Isenschmid identified by various witnesses, that were thwarted by the medical authorities.

On 19th September Abberline wrote a summary report on the investigation (MEPO 3/140, ff. 242-56). He detailed efforts to find the first ‘Leather Apron’, the suspicion that was attached to three slaughtermen, his interrogation of Edward Stanley, enquiries made at Common Lodging Houses, and the questioning of numerous other witnesses. The final part of Abberline’s report fixated on Iscenschmid.

The focus was on Iscenschmid but it seems that his brother appeared and provided an alibi. This was first reported in the Star on 21st September and repeated in numerous other newspapers on 22nd September.

Chief Inspector Swanson wrote a summary of the case for the Home Office on 19th October 1888 (HO 144/221/A49301C, ff. 129-34). In it he said:

‘3.45 a.m. 31st Augst. The body of a woman was found lying on the footway in Bucks Row, Whitechapel, by Charles Cross & Robert Paul Carmen, on their way to work. They informed P.C. 55H Divn. Mizen in Bakers Row.’

As late as 19th October the police were still referring to Charles Lechmere as Charles Cross in their confidential internal reports with no indication that they knew that his name was Lechmere. In internal reports alternative names, if known, were invariably given. This is very good evidence to suggest that Lechmere had not been thoroughly investigated as late as 19th October.
In passing it will be noticed that Swanson timed the discovery by Lechmere and Paul as happening at 3.45 am – rather than 3.40 am. Swanson also refers to them as being together when they discovered the body and when they spoke with Mizen – almost as if they were inseparable. They had become a pair, with Lechmere no longer a lone discoverer.
By this time Paul had been found and exonerated of course.
It seems that in the eyes of the police the two Carmen became fused as the investigation proceeded. This suggests their individual significance diminished as the case grew more complex.

Swanson’s report was at pains to give the impression to the Home Office that the police were conscientiously conducting their enquiries. He stated:

‘The enquiry into her history did not disclose the slightest pretext for a motive on the part of her friends or associates in the common lodging houses.’
So the police clearly were thinking sensibly and so far as they could eliminated the possibility that Nichols as killed by someone known to her.
Swanson said the police also looked at various people who may have been deemed suspicious:

‘Amongst such are the three slaughtermen, named Tomkins, Britton and Mumford… and they satisfactorily accounted for their time… Another man named John Piser, better known as “Leather apron” became suspected…’ until exonerated on 10th September.

Swanson wrote another report for the Home Office on 19th October (HO 144/221/A49301C, ff. 137-45). In it he detailed the measures taken following the murder of Annie Chapman.
Lodging Houses were searched, efforts were made to trace various unnamed suspected persons, others were detained. Three insane medical students were given a special mention.
Swanson made it clear that John Richardson was very closely looked at.

I could go on listing the people named as being questioned and the focusses of the police investigation.
We have a good idea of who the police looked at, who they suspected – even briefly. The reports to the Home Office were at pains to make it clear that every base was covered.
There is nothing remotely to suggest Lechmere was looked at. The police initially focussed their investigation on Pizer, then switched to Iscenschmid – a Jew and a mad foreigner.

Although William Nichols seems to have been checked out, did the initial police enquiry into the Nichols murder cover all the usual bases?
At the inquest it was revealed that the police had neglected to interview all but a handful of residents in Buck’s Row. This telling exchange took place on the hearing held on 17th September (as reported in the Times on 18th September).

‘Inspector Spratley, J Division, stated he had made inquiries in Buck's-row, but not at all of the houses.
The Coroner: Then that will have to be done.
Witness added [Spratling] that he made inquiries at Green's, the wharf, Snider's factory, and also at the Great Eastern wharf, and no one had heard anything unusual on the morning of the murder. He had not called at any of the houses in Buck's-row, excepting at Mrs. Green's. He had seen the Board School keeper.’

So as late as 17th September only a few residents in Buck’s Row had been interviewed. The police were very fallible!

In the first news and police reports (e.g. Inspector Spratling’s report of 31st August – MEPO 3/140, ff. 239-41) Charles Lechmere’s involvement (in the guise of Charles Cross) was unknown. It seems that Lechmere must have presented himself to give a statement on the evening of 2nd September and appeared at the inquest on the morning of 3rd September.
Inspector Abberline was seconded to assist with the investigation and was somewhat thrown in the deep end, attending the first day of the Nichols inquest on 1st September. It is not to be wondered that Abberline didn’t immediately find time to interrogate Lechmere, who had after all volunteered himself, when there were other witnesses who had not been traced at all at that stage (e.g. Robert Paul). The Chapman murder followed on soon after. It is hardly surprising that a seemingly straight forward witness would not be re-visited as the case rapidly grew more complex.

Charles Lechmere, in the guise of Charles Cross, appears in two of the extant police reports. I have mentioned the Swanson one, but Abberline also referred to him in his 19th September 1888 report:

‘I beg to report that about 3.40. am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, “carman2 of 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green was passing through Bucks 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 carman (also on his way to work) named 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. 55.H Mizen and acquainted him of what they had seen.’

This brief account has the discovery of the body timed at 3.40 am and is little more than an abridged version of Lechmere’s inquest testimony. He is of course referred to solely as Cross which is a very good indication that the police were unaware of his real name.

Dew in his memoirs, I Caught Crippen, recounted a fairy accurate overall account of the Ripper murders – written largely from memory 50 years after the events.
He related a slightly garbled version of the Nichols murder and significantly he could not remember Charles Cross’s surname. He was too insignificant.

Dew also didn’t remember Robert Paul’s name but he did – if slightly inaccurately – recall that there was a search for Paul. As Paul did not come forward (unlike Lechmere) he was found and dragged out of his bed on the middle of the night and interrogated.

So why should we assume – with no substantiation at all – that the police checked Charles Lechmere in any sort of thorough manner?
Lechmere had handed himself in. He gave an address and a workplace – he was a family man with a secure job and a permanent home. I would suggest he did not fit the criminal profile that the police worked to and that he was accordingly able to flit in and out of the case – virtually noticed.
Generations of Ripperologists have not noticed him – even inventing the oft repeated exonerating tale that Lechmere was going to scavenge a tarpaulin.

[Fisherman]

I thoroughly recommend such an approach on your behalf.

Only because I expose the weakness and the flatulence of your theory all too effectively Fishyman.

Don't get the idea you are off the hook.

Every post you write simply throws into stronger relief the puerile nature of your approach and conclusions.

WHAT "hook", Phil? You have nothing to fish with, my friend. Besides, Iīm the Fisherman around here, remember?

What you achieved so far is a collection of unbolstered accusations and mockery, carefully avoiding to discuss the topic and instead discussing me.

In doing so, you have reached almost biblical heights of apocalyptic, sulphur-reeking predictions of the gruesome fate that ought to await me (and any other Ripperologist untrue to your perception of "true scholarship) - and then you have garnished it by claiming that I would be the one doing the blustering ...?! Priceless!

Plus you have not provided what I asked you for - the three details you believe are most damning for the Lechmere theory. I would be interested to have them presented to me - given your vocabulary, they must be truly devastating - so that I may point out that there is nothing at all behind your ramblings.
Once we get that overwith, maybe a serious discussion can be had, focusing on bits and pieces pertaining to the case itself. It would make for a useful change.

In fact, Iīll go so far as to say that if all you can come up with is more mockery and attacks on my person, Iīll simply leave such a post unanswered. This has taken up too much space as it is, and too many Lehcmere threads have been garbled by posts that have not brought the case a millimeter forward. However, if you are able to produce a post dealing with the Lechmere issue, I will merrily respond. Just be prepared that if you ask questions that have been asked before, you may get answers to them that have also been given before. I would appreciate if you did not use that to go on about how I repeat myself. The answer to 1+1 is and remains an inevitable 2, no matter how refreshing it would be to have 0,74 proposed instead.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

the three details you believe are most damning for the Lechmere theory

1. No evidence other than conjectural and speculation

2. No contemporary suspicion (no mention by senior figures at the time)

3. You mix evidence from various sources in an indiscriminate way.

For your information, Fishy, "Letting someone off the hook" is English idiom for giving them an easy time.

[Fisherman]

the three details you believe are most damning for the Lechmere theory

1. No evidence other than conjectural and speculation

2. No contemporary suspicion (no mention by senior figures at the time)

3. You mix evidence from various sources in an indiscriminate way.

For your information, Fishy, "Letting someone off the hook" is English idiom for giving them an easy time.

Beginning from the end, Phil, the expression about letting somebody off the hook is one that we Swedes have too. So I am aquainted with itīs meaning - itīs the exact same here.
And I still say you have nothing to fish with in that context.

Your points:

1. No evidence other than conjectural and speculation

Like I have said before, this is not true. What you introduce here is "conjectural evidence" and "speculation evidence". These disciplines do not exist.
I have, however, little trouble to see what you mean. I ground my theory on conjecture and speculation.
This is not true either.

What I do, is to use the evidence attaching to the case, in the shape of police reports, press reports from the inquests and press articles, combined with other material, like for example memoirs written by people with a connection to the case.

These things are not conjectural or speculation.

After that, I check how this evidence fits in with a picture of Lechmere as the killer. Does it gainsay the theory or does it support it? Sometimes there will be press articles that provide a chance for giving both answers; one article will seemingly corroborate the theory, whereas another points more away from it. However, nothing at all has surfaced to conclusively prove the theory wrong. What has surfaced has gone the other way; it has provided support for it.

Along this process, a picture is built of how Lechmere could have done the deeds and gotten away with it.

This is where elements of conjecture come in. But I must point out that the exact same applies to Kosminski (who I think is a useful comparison, since you often point to him as a prime example of what a suspect SHOULD be); when it was found out that he had a tenuous connection to Berner Street, it was taken as an indication that he could be the Berner Street killer. When it is said that he once threatened a sister with a knife, it is accepted as evidence that he may have been accustomed to knives and that he could well have used a knife on the Ripper victims.

This too is conjecture. It casts Kosminski in a role where we cannot possibly know that he belongs and where we have zero proof that he ever tried his hand.

The true problem with this issue, however, is that we cannot readily make a very detailed sketch of how Kosminski would have done the deed, since we have so painfully little on him. We donīt know where he was on the murder mornings, we donīt know which streets he walked and so on.

Lechmere is entirely different. He is a totally hands-on suspect, about whom we have heaps of details adhering to the Nichols murder morning, plus we can show that he would - if everything went down the normal way - have passed close to the murder sites at the roughly relevant hours of the murders, generally speaking.
So when we form a theory about him as the killer, we can provide lots and lots of detail, making the picture a very clear one. We know how he stepped out into the street, how he put is hand on Paulīs shoulder, etcetera, etcetera. And this would be what intimidates people when it comes to the conjecture bit - it can all be presented in great detail, pointing a finger at Lechmere in a very much more obvious manner than can be done visavi Kosminski.

Kosminski is a character we cannot give a detailed conjectural picture of, and so he remains less threatening in this context.

Lechmere comes with an exact story of how he did the deed, all thing sin place more or less - and so the proposition is a very definitive one, making the ones who accuse him look extremely self-confident although they cannot prove their case. Such things are much more annoying, I can understand that.

But in the end, no definitive proof can be provided visavi ANY suspect, but ALL suspects are conjectured about as being the killer. The difference is that the Lechmere suggestion has so much more evidence connected to it, so much more detail given, that a conjectural story can be bolstered by an incredible amount of small bits and pieces.

2. No contemporary suspicion (no mention by senior figures at the time)

Conceded! But what we must do here is to look at OTHER cases with serial killers involved, cases that were not originally solved but found a solution later on.
In how many of these cases were the perpetrator recognized as a suspect in the original investigation? Can a serial killer stay under the police radar? Or will he inevitably be suggested as a suspect?
We both know the answer to that one, Phil, donīt we? There are heaps of cases where the killer, when found, has not been on any suspect list. And that invalidates your point.
Seen from another perspective, the point HAS something going for it: Having been a contemporary suspect carries weight. It can never be a disadvantage for a suspicion of guilt, so to speak. But we can never make the assumption that the true killer must have been among the police suspects, since empirical experience tells a different story.

3. You mix evidence from various sources in an indiscriminate way.

I use all the sources I mentioned above. It does not mean that I am indiscriminate, however. I am fully aware that there are traps along the press printed way. I would not, however, take that as an indication that press reports should not be used. And indeed, they are used in building a case against every suspect. Show me one suspect where no press report has been used to form a case (and remember that even the inquests are press reports!) and I will marvel.

I will exemplify with one detail to show how and what I mean:

When Lechmere spoke to Mizen, he would reasonably prefer not to have Paul listening to what he said, if he conned the PC. Therefore, it would be nice if all the papers said that the two carmen were far apart.
But the press reports are very vague on this issue. Typically they say something like: One man came up and spoke to me. He looked like a carman. He was in company with another man, who also gave the impression of being a carman.

This allows for more than one interpretation. It does not explicitly say that Paul never spoke to the PC - but it DOES imply that this was the case, by Mizenīs wording that "one man" came up to him and spoke.
However, it says that the two men were in company, giving the impression of physical proximity. But no paper (but one) comment on how close that proximity was?
Then there was the Star (I believe), that said about Paul: "The other man, who went down Hanbury Street..."

That gave me the opening I hoped to find: I could be that the two were very much apart, allowing for Lechmere to stay out of Paulīs earshot.

It is, however, one paper of many. None of the others corroborate this. But neither do they gainsay it! It is the ONLY report that has anything to say about any distance inbetween the carmen.

In the end, it becomes a valuable and important clue and part of the chain that I think binds Lechmere more and more. And it should be used, not as any definitive proof, but as a part of the existing material surrounding the case. It belongs to the picture, and it would be a strange thing to do to deny itīs existence.

There you are, Phil. Thatīs my answers. I was a bit surprised that you did not mention any particular detail, but you are much more a man of procedures than of case details, I find. Anyways, this is how I reason.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

I was just catching up on Casebook and came across this thread and read it with increasing disbelief, since those who refuse to admit Lechmere as a suspect appear to do so out of sheer bloodymindedness and personal animosity.

1. No evidence other than conjectural and speculation

In that case, we'd have no suspects at all, as hard evidence is missing for all of them ! Still, if this were a modern day case, then the first person that we would have to look at closely would be the person placed over the body at the TOD. What is so hard about admitting that ? (and surely most people would agree that, if the killer wasn't Lechmere, then he interrupted the killer -so he was certainly there at the TOD). Furthermore, if that person can be linked to all the different murder sites in the right time frame, he has to be of interest. That is just logical. It is also logical to be suspicious when that person gave police a name that was different to the name which we know that he gave on every other occasion that has come down to us.

Never mind what different name he gave police, nor if we think that he might of used it at work -that is speculation. We don't know. We only know that he gave police a name that he never ever used on official papers -and there are lots of examples. It is simply being wilfully obtuse to deny it.

2. No contemporary suspicion (no mention by senior figures at the time)

Whenever there are opinion polls, the majority of people seem to opt for 'unknown local man' -so someone who wasn't suspected by contemporary senior figures at the time. This doesn't appear to cause anybody any problems ? Whoever the Ripper was, he must have lived with/next to loads of people in such an overcrowded city, none of whom suspected him. It seems to me that 'no contemporary suspicion' is no sort of argument at all. Surely we can agree on that ?

3. You mix evidence from various sources in an indiscriminate way.

Of course one tries to take evidence from various different sources ! Taking evidence from only one source at your own discrimination would hardly be better, would it !

I have no idea if Lechmere was JTR or not, but he is a bloody good suspect..

[Phil H]

Sorry Ruby I have to disagree totally.

First of all I have nothing against "Crossmere" as a figure of interest. I find him an intriguing and amusing character. Amusing because, wouldn't it be ironic if the person who appears at the very start of most books on JtR turned out to have dunnit"!?

My objection is to the extension of that interest into a full-blown and to my mind, insecure thesis andto the way that that case is developed and argued.

The ONLY pieces of evidence asserted against Cross are:

a) being beside the body when it was still warm; and

b) giving a name that appears other than the one he usually used.

BOTH are capable of explanation in innocent ways.

Everything else is conjecture and speculation.

In that case, we'd have no suspects at all, as hard evidence is missing for all of them !

Surely, the position is that we do have NO solid suspects? We may use the term "suspect" loosely, but the fact is there are none - we have no evidence.

However, as I have said before many times, a number of individuals have a special status as being "of interest" because they were named by senior figures at the time - Kosminski, Druitt, Tumblety (and to an extent Ostrog).

In the absence of the complete set of files those three men are studied to understand WHY they were under suspicion in 1888(ish).

Lechmere does not fall into that category. he may be mentioned in press reports and police files, but he was never OF INTEREST to them at the time. He might better be associated with figures like Dr Barnardo who is similarly mentioned as around and has been suspected in the past by modern writers.

Furthermore, if that person can be linked to all the different murder sites in the right time frame, he has to be of interest.

But Lechmere acnnot be LINKED to any other site, at least no more than can thousands of other inhabitants of the East End who lived and worked in the area or passed through it on their "commute" daily.

It is also logical to be suspicious when that person gave police a name that was different to the name which we know that he gave on every other occasion that has come down to us.

But there could be several other explanations for that. As you yourself say "Never mind what different name he gave police, nor if we think that he might of used it at work -that is speculation. We don't know."

Nor with respect, do we know why he gave a false name that day.

It is simply being wilfully obtuse to deny it.

I have never denied he used a false name - only that one can extrapolate from that that he killed several women.

Whenever there are opinion polls, the majority of people seem to opt for 'unknown local man' -so someone who wasn't suspected by contemporary senior figures at the time.

Not my point, you are simply seeking to change the nature of the discussion to one more supportive of your view. I have set out the reasons why the contemporary suspects MUST take precedence many times - and why they are in a separate category.

It seems to me that 'no contemporary suspicion' is no sort of argument at all. Surely we can agree on that ?

Not if one adheres to the usual scholarly approaches and the historical method. Opinion polls are amusing, can be of interest but are, frankly, irrelevant to anything serious.

Of course one tries to take evidence from various different sources ! Taking evidence from only one source at your own discrimination would hardly be better, would it !

If I was your college tutor I'd have you expelled for lazy thinking and sheer inability to understand. (Just joking, but there is a serious point here.)

I am talking of discriminating in a clinical and academic way between first hand evidence, legal testimony (under oath), police statement, official files etc (what one might group together as the record) and press reports which we know were often incorrect or faulty (names etc).

I think even a first year student would understand those differences and use the "evidence" accordingly.

It is not SAFE (in an academic sense) to simply use material from one type of source to fill in gaps in more reliable testimony. Oh it can be done - and is - but only with careful explanation and equal care about how that is then extrapolated or the inferences drawn. To make the distinction clearer, - a jury in a court is expected to reach a verdict on the basis of the testimony it has heard and the evidence it has seen - it would be out of order to add in what press reports might have said; gossip; or personal knowledge.

Please don't say, but the Ripper is a special case, we don't have much material to work with!! In fact scholars working on the ancient world or some other more recent periods, have to do exactly the same thing. they have developed approaches to do so and those are the ones, i assert, we should use.

Anything else (IMHO) reduces Ripperology to kids playing in a mud pit and making mud pies and sandcastles!

I have no idea if Lechmere was JTR or not, but he is a bloody good suspect..

That's your judgement - I disagree strongly.

Phil