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

[Jenni Shelden]

I don't think what Stewat said was wrong but its the kind of thing others have said before only more detailed and here we are still
Jenni

[Lechmere]

Robert
One more bit...
On Tabram’s ‘display’, Dew had this to say in I Caught Crippen:
‘The dead woman was lying in a pool of blood. Her clothing had been disarranged, and even without close examination the signs of horrible mutilation were obvious.’

What did Lechmere tell his wife?
Let me think… maybe she was asleep and he just left early without telling her anything.
No, wait a minute I’ve thought of another one… maybe he told her he had to get into work early.
Or what about this… maybe be ruled the roost and didn’t have to explain himself to his wife.
Couldn't you think of any of these?

There wasn’t a Ripper scare going on at the time.
But by the time of the Nichols murder – hey! I’ve just thought of something.
Maybe that’s why he attended the inquest in his work clothes and apron. Maybe he didn’t want his wife to think he was going to the inquest as his night time habits had become a little erratic and he didn’t want her to grow suspicious.

Jenni
You aren’t obliged to read any of the threads that don’t interest you.
The posts that I reposted here – verbatim, not out of context – were put in a thread that was set up to discuss a particular theory of Mr Lucky’s. Putting those posts on Mr Lucky’s thread was way off topic.
I did not feel comfortable ruining Mr Lucky’s thread with way off topic discussions. I think that is bad etiquette. Hence I decided to set up a separate thread to discuss the issues which will be lengthy and complex.
I am in the process of composing a partial response by the way.
I have not forced anyone to follow the discussion to this new thread. Just as you are not forced to read any of it, if it displeases you.
If you think there are too many Cross threads then perhaps you should ask that they be banned.

[Jenni Shelden]

Why did you create a thread ?how many Cross threads do you need ?Etiquette would dictate replying in the thread the point was made in and not reposting someones posts elsewhere out of context .

[Robert]

But Lechmere, what is Cross supposed to have told his wife, when he is leaving home more than an hour before he needs to?

[Lechmere]

Robert
Lechmere had to be in work at 4 am – at least that was the given time for 31st August.
His shortest route to work would have taken him down Old Montague Street and Wentworth Street crossing the top of George Yard. If he had taken that route that morning he would have passed within 20 yards of Martha Tabram’s undiscovered dead body.
Alfred Crow probably saw Tabram’s body in the dark at 3.30 am.
It doesn’t take much to place Lechmere there shortly before this – maybe at 2.45 am to agree with Killeen’s estimated time of death.
It may have been his first attack, certainly his first successful street attack, and so maybe he left early to make sure he found a victim. Who knows?
So far as I’m concerned, establishing that another unsolved murder took place just a few yards from Lechmere’s shortest route to work and that if he had taken that route that day he would have walked past the victim’s undiscovered body is quite sufficient to establish proximity.
You may disagree.

[Robert]

Hi Lechmere

Well, if that's from Stewart and Don then OK. But I still don't see how the murder times really tally with any fixed time for Cross to start work.

[Robert]

Hi Fish

Well, I don't know about the Lechmere express. It seems more like a slow train in Kelly's case. Notice that he does not kill her in the alley. Instead he walks with her into her room and lets her get undressed as if he had all the time in the world.

Re Tabram, I thought you were arguing that she was a Lechmere victim. As far as I am aware, we don't have any reports of anyone passing a man on the stair in the building, and the police would have questioned all the occupants. So what could have disturbed the killer?

Whoever the murderer was, I can understand if he was disturbed at the Stride murder, and even the Nichols murder. But if you also include a disturbance at the Tabram murder, then perhaps I might appeal to Lady Bracknell : "To lose one evisceration may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose two eviscerations may be regarded as a double misfortune. To lose three eviscerations, looks like carelessness."

[Lechmere]

Robert
Was Tabram left ‘on display’? Yes.

I’m taking this from Scotland Yard Investigates which was co-authored by somebody called Stewart P. Evans:
‘He discovered Tabram as he was leaving home to seek work; she was lying on her back in a pool of blood. Reeves immediately informed the patrolling beat police officer…’
This tells us that the victim’s status (dead) was obvious to Reeves – quite unlike Nichols.
Also it is noticeable that despite being on his way to work, Reeves took the time to find a policeman and correctly appraise him of the situation. Again unlike in the case of Nichols’s body being discovered.

Anyway there’s more…
‘She was lying on her back, her hands by her sides and tightly clenched, ad her legs apart. Her clothing was turned up as far as the centre of her body, leaving the lower part exposed… There was a deal of blood between the legs’

I was very interested to discover what you would do first thing in the morning if you were Jack the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

Robert: Fish, you say that Kelly was killed at a time that may also tally with Lechmere's job trek. I take it you base that on the murder cry.

Actually no. I find the murder cry business doubtful at best. What I base things on is the joint verdict of Bond and Phillips as to the time of death, something that allows for an interpretation of the 3.33 Lechmere train having passed by Dorset Street on time. I am not saying, therefore, that it seems she was killed at that approximate time - I am saying that nothing much contradicts that she could have been.
Tabram and Chapman are actually tougher nuts, Tabram having been killed at 2.30 if Killeen was on the money. But we only know - or can safely assume - that she was not in place at 2 AM, whereas she WAS at 3.30. As for Chapman, Long and Cadosch have their versions, Richardson has his - and would it not be nice if Phillips had confirmed them all? But he does not. He is emphatic that Chapman did not die as late as 5.30, but instead he places her time of death alongside the Lechmere expresse´s passing by.

But what about the time taken to mutilate Kelly? How does that fit in?

That would depend. None of us knows how long it took. I remember that Sam Flynn made an estimation some years back, leaving us with a surprisingly short period of time. On the whole, though, one must assume that Lechmere may have walked off early enough to get it done in time.
The suggestion on his behalf, for example, that he left home at 3.20 on the Nichols murder morning is something we only have his own word for. What if he actually was the killer? Should we assume that he was honest about these things? Would that not be a tad naïve? Just asking!

Lechmere's hours must have been a bit irregular. Plus, would he really feel confident that he could make sure he was cleaned up before turning up for work?

See my previous answer, Robert. Also keep in mind that there are very many variables that we don´t have on hand.

If I was JTR I wouldn't want to start a long working day by butchering a woman in this manner. I think I'd prefer a bowl of corn flakes.

Yes, but you know what they say - change is refreshing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

While I fully agree that Cross/Lechmere needs to be looked ar more closely (but ALL the witnesses do so, to understand them in general), like all of the modern suspect theories this one takes any oddity or personality quirk and equates it with PROOF that it is directly connected with the murders. P. Cornwell's "Sickert titling a painting 'Jack the Ripper's Bedroom' PROVES that he was the Ripper" 'theory' is a good example. The Cross theory REQUIRES the moronic idea that the ONLY possible reason for the change of name is that he was the Ripper.

I wish these 'theorists' would learn the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Also, I'd like them to consider how THEY would like to be charged for multiple murders and be tried and convicted based on the same silly 'evidence' that they publish.

... and I would like you to look closer at what we say before you go around claiming that any of us have said that there is "PROOF" the way you claim. As for the legal implications, you will find if you go back on the threads that I have very clearly said that what we have would never stand up in a court of law.

So much for personal quirks ... (sigh)

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tabram wasn't left with her clothes flung up, was she? Therefore if you have Tabram and Nichols being killed by the same hand, you'll have to concede that Tabram's clothes were left down in a situation where the killer had not been disturbed.

I do? I am sure that he was not disturbed? When did that happen? How do I know that he did not start out with that flurry, followed by the stab to the heart, and then, with the intention to eviscerate, he was disturbed?

There are way too many uncertain elements involved here. One of them is the question whether Tabram WAS killed by Jack.

And if she was, let´s remember what Reeves said: "Her clothes were all disarranged, as if she had had a struggle with some one."

Could the killer have torn at the clothes, in order to get better access to the abdomen? He sure could. Was that why the clothes were all disarranged? Who knows? Were the clothes so disarranged as to reveal Tabrams private parts? And the lower abdomen? Was the cut in her lower abdomen delivered through the clothing? Or not?

The best,
Fisherman

[C. F. Leon]

While I fully agree that Cross/Lechmere needs to be looked ar more closely (but ALL the witnesses do so, to understand them in general), like all of the modern suspect theories this one takes any oddity or personality quirk and equates it with PROOF that it is directly connected with the murders. P. Cornwell's "Sickert titling a painting 'Jack the Ripper's Bedroom' PROVES that he was the Ripper" 'theory' is a good example. The Cross theory REQUIRES the moronic idea that the ONLY possible reason for the change of name is that he was the Ripper. A lot of witnesses using a false name to avoid creditors or some other trouble (a jealous husband whose wife he was having an affair with?) may give their REAL name (or vice-versa) to the cops, especially when he seems to have been related to an official. And as I understand it, it was HIS name to give.

I wish these 'theorists' would learn the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Also, I'd like them to consider how THEY would like to be charged for multiple murders and be tried and convicted based on the same silly 'evidence' that they publish.

[Lechmere]

Apologies Sally

[Sally]

But your not out with Hutch. Strange.

According to you, Ed.

And it's 'you're'

[Robert]

Fish, you say that Kelly was killed at a time that may also tally with Lechmere's job trek. I take it you base that on the murder cry. But what about the time taken to mutilate Kelly? How does that fit in? Lechmere's hours must have been a bit irregular. Plus, would he really feel confident that he could make sure he was cleaned up before turning up for work?

If I was JTR I wouldn't want to start a long working day by butchering a woman in this manner. I think I'd prefer a bowl of corn flakes.