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

[Ben]

I just think it's a shame that those Marginalia forgers didn't think to write 'Cross was the suspect'

Then we could all go home.

Yep, Sally.

Or for the sake of completeness, we should really include the initials:

"Cross was the suspect - BS"

Oops, I meant DSS....honest!

[Sally]

Nothing to see here...

There is nothing suspicious about an inevitable event - i.e. an early worker discovering the body.

There is nothing suspicious about using another name - one that was not a random alias, but a name connected with his family. As others have pointed out, the act of supplying his address (where his true identity was so easily accessible) defeated the purpose of any series attempt at identity concealment.

Oh, What?

Of course it's suspicious. On both counts.

Obvious sign of guilt, I'd say.

I just think it's a shame that those Marginalia forgers didn't think to write 'Cross was the suspect'

Then we could all go home.

[Fisherman]

But Ben, you DO accept Iremongers verdict, don´t you?

And - just as for example Garry Wroe has pointed out to you - you have no evidence at all what signatures she saw.

So there is no fightpicking on MY behalf, only on yours. I accept the reality as it is. Simple as.

You fight away, though, Ben. Never mind me. I won´t be there to answer you, but as I´ve just pointed out, I don´t need to.

Adios!

Your friend,
Fisherman

[Ben]

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 don´t know which signatures she looked at.

Now that was a silly fight to try and pick, wasn't it, Fisherman?

Surely you're attracting enough opprobrium at the moment with the Cross theory and the Marginalia mountain-out-of-molehill that you could do without the extra criticism that would inevitably result from incurring the wrath of those very belligerent "Hutchinsonians"? I mean, to be constantly fending off all that censure, you'd have to be glued to the message board all day, surely? Oh wait...

Sue Iremonger compared the three Hutchinson statement signatures with Toppy's marriage certificate signature, and not a copy thereof, according to the best authorities who were active in ripper research in the early 1990s, including Martin Fido and Paul Begg, if memory serves. That ought to be sufficient for most of us Johnny-Come-Latelys, and almost certainly is.

But we've been through that nonsense on a thread that spawned 2500 posts, so it's going to have to be back on topic, and here too you're encountering problems because the objections to Crossmere-as-ripper remain valid.

There is nothing suspicious about an inevitable event - i.e. an early worker discovering the body.

There is nothing suspicious about using another name - one that was not a random alias, but a name connected with his family. As others have pointed out, the act of supplying his address (where his true identity was so easily accessible) defeated the purpose of any series attempt at identity concealment.

Killing on the way to work makes absolutely no sense criminologically, and for extremely obvious reasons, which is presumably why no known serial killer can be shown to have done this.

Pursuant to this, if Annie Chapman was killed at 5:30ish, as is popularly supposed, his work provides him with a probable alibi, since carmen were due at work considerably earlier. Excuses such as, I dunno, maybe he impressed his boss over the years and was allowed to arrive later on given days, and maybe he had a place at Pickfords to stash organs and clean up, are improbable outside chances that don't really convince.

He wasn't "linked" to lots of crime scenes.

There almost certainly wasn't a "Mizen scam".

There is no realistic possibility of the police investigating Robert Paul (body discoverer #2) as a suspect, but failing even to countenance the possibility that Charles Cross (body discoverer #1 - hello-oh!) might be involved, either separately or with Paul. And given how startlingly obvious this is, there is equally little rationale in Cross seeking to implicate Paul.

Regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Now I will move onto the timing issue.
Mr Evans covered this in his third post.

Whenever discussing timings the obvious caveat apples that clocks were few and far between and often inaccurate. Times were often rounded up or down.

The times that need to interest us are the times between Lechmere leaving his house and arriving at Brown’s Stable Yard.
The time it took for Paul to leave home and arrive at the same location.
The time it took for Paul and Lechmere to get from Brown’s Stable Yard to Mizen’s location.
The time Neil arrived at the murder scene.
The time Dr Llewellyn arrived at the murder scene.
The time between the Lechmere-Paul meeting and Llewellyn’s initial inspection of the body.

Although the actual o’clock time may be inaccurate, the time taken to walk the various short distances involved is less difficult to estimate.

The time Charles Lechmere left home is given as either 3.20 am or 3.30 am, depending on the newspaper report of his inquest testimony. That is quite an important difference given the nature of what happened and how long it would have taken to happen.
Chief Inspector Swanson’s report of 19th October 1888 states that Cross (Lechmere) and Paul found the body at 3.45 am
In his inquest testimony Lechmere said he got to work at 4.00 am.

Paul (in his Lloyd’s newspaper interview) claims that he met Lechmere at exactly 3.45 am.
In his inquest testimony he said he left home at about 3.45 am and that just 4 minutes elapsed between his meeting with Lechmere and when they got to Mizen.
He claimed to know that he was ate for work.

PC Mizen said that Lechmere and Paul met him at about 3.45 am

The only timing that PC Neil gave at the inquest seems to be when he said he passed the murder scene at 3.15 am, roughly half an hour before he found the body.
However in Inspector Spratling’s report of 31st August 1888 it is stated that PC Neil found Nichols’ body at 3.45 am. This time was repeated in Helson’s report of 7th September.
The initial pre-inquest newspaper reports also gave the time of PC Neil’s discovery as 3.45 am.

PC Thain said he was signalled by PC Neil at about 3.45 am.
He was sent to get the doctor and claims it took him ten minutes to return.
Caution has to be exercised with Thain’s timings for his trip to Dr. Llewellyn’s surgery as he was cross examined about when he picked his cape up. The cape had been left at the horse butchers yard in Winthrop Street, by a brother office allegedly. Thain claimed he didn’t tell the butchers about the murder. They said otherwise. Neil said the butchers were the first passers by the turn up and there were bystanders present when Llewellyn got there. The obvious inference is that Thain stopped off to get his cape when on his way to get Llewellyn.
Thain seemed sensitive to suggestions he had left his beat to deposit his cape at the slaughter yard and also to suggestions that he did not go immediately for Llewellyn but diverted to gossip with the butchers. It was against regulations to leave for an officer to leave his beat.
However it seems clear to me that Thain did get his cape at that stage as afterwards he was busy and the butcher’s yard would have been closed.
The significance of this diversion is that it would have delayed Thain in getting Llewellyn by quite a few minutes.

Llewellyn said he was called at about 4 am by Thain.
He then had to dress and get to Buck’s Row.
When he examined Nichols, he estimated that she had been dead for not more than half an hour. That is a very narrow time frame. That is why the few extra minutes delay in getting Llewellyn is of some significance.
Llewellyn probably didn’t get to Brown’s Stable Yard until 4.10 am.
This means his estimated time of death would have been around 3.40 – or later.

[Jenni Shelden]

that's really interesting. Thanks
Jenni

[Lechmere]

A 1899 version of the Goad map of the Durward Street area.
I have marked Paul’s route in yellow and his rough location when he noticed Lechmere – the purple cross.
I have also marked Llewellyn’s Surgery in yellow, the Horse Slaughter Yard (a green dot) and the rough location of the nightwatchman Patrick Mulshaw (blue dot) and the direction of Thain’s beat (red arrow).

[Lechmere]

A 1929 Goad map showing how close 29 Hanbury Street was to Corbett’s Court (by then renamed Corbet Place).
I have marked no. 29 and the rough location of the body.
Wilkes Street is the road to the west of the bock of houses that included 29.
The Corbett’s Court insert is to be joined to the left of Wilkes Street

[Lechmere]

Corbett’s Court in relation to Great and Little Pearl Street.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Lechmere.
I do not try to get in anyone's head, because as you state ''we don't know''
The logical reason why there was no other person but Nichols lying in Bucks Row, was that both Lechmere and Paul were simply innocent witnesses.
If one of them was a homicidal maniac, then the other would surely be laying beside her.
Why did he not kill Dimschutz?
Because in my honest opinion ..the killer was not present when he arrived at the yard.
Regards Richard.

[Lechmere]

Richard
I try to avoid speculating on what was in the killers mind unless asked - as clearly we don't know. But you are claiming to know for sure!
In the scenario where Lechmere did it, he clearly didn't feel it necessary to kill Paul as he successfully bluffed his way out if it.
If you raised the objection to Lechmere as the culprit that he must have or should have killed Paul and as he didn't then he can't have been the culprit then it is not the case.

Why didn't he kill Dimschutz?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Lechmere,
How do you know what was going on in Lechmere's head when Paul arrived on the scene?
If ..and only if he was the killer, he would have felt threatened by this intruder, and regardless if the throat before the torso was usual practice he would have attempted to kill him, otherwise we would have a living witness able to identify a possible killer.
Surely that is more likely then let him walk away?
As for the cutting of the throat first I disagree.
It is awkward to get in a position to cut the throat of a person who is on his guard like Paul was. but a thrust in the abdomen or two would disable resistance, so that the throat could be the final strike. .
Just my opinion.so why did the killer of Stride not attack Schwartz?
Simply.. Young Schwartz ran away.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Damaso Marte,
Again its all down to opinions.
I consider Stride more likely to have been a victim of the Ripper then not.
All I was suggesting was the possible character of her attacker, if Schwartz was accurate, and his personality showed no mildness.
Regards Richard.

[Damaso Marte]

Hello Lechmere.
Until we can disprove that the Ripper did not kill Stride, It is right to assume.
Are you saying it is unlikely that a killer would turn on a male, if forced into a position where he was protecting his freedom.
How much courage would it take to ram a blade into a mans body, and disable him, and slice his throat, also have we the physical details of Cross and Paul, if Strides Killer was indeed the Ripper he certainly was not the meek and mild type.and if he appeared to have broad shoulders , there's a good chance he was a meaty individual.
Are we really suggesting that all murders victims are women , and men are to timid to kill there own sex?
Regards Richard.

Many people on this site believe that Stride was not a Ripper victim, and many people also believe that Israel Schwartz made up his testimony. In fact, some people believe both of these things.

You are free to believe what you want, but you will not get far on this site by assuming both that Stride is a Ripper victim AND that Schwartz is a believable witness.

(Personally, I think Stride was a Ripper victim, but I do not believe Schwartz's story. If Schwartz was proven correct, I would abandon Stride as a Ripper victim)

[Lechmere]

I'm 99% sure Stride was a Ripper killing and, oh, 75% sure it wasn't done by BS man.
Irrespective of whether Lechmere was the Ripper.

Richard
The scenario where Lechmere met Paul was not a do or die one was it. So your cornered rat scenario is a bit irrelevant.
By the way I don't want to nit pick but shouldn't he have sliced his throat first (to prevent a cry), then ram the blade into his body and disabled him?