The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[John Wheat]

Not true of course. Druitt doesn’t require a theory. He was mentioned by Macnaghten in 1894. Opinions of Druitt completely aside, he’s not just a name that people have alighted on in the modern era.

Bury was questioned about the murders……Cross was questioned as a witness but never, as far as we know, as a suspect. And in any tick box exercise Bury would have score higher than other suspects.

Traumatic childhood…..tick
Early criminality……tick
Asult criminality…..tick
Violence……tick
Use of a knife…..tick
Lived locally……tick
Propensity to kill……tick
Explanation for the murders ceasing…..tick
Considered by the police……tick

If I call correctly we might even add half a tick to the ‘connection with prostitutes’ box as I believe it’s suspected that his wife was one.

Not bad for a non suspect?

HI Herlock.

Im pretty sure Bury's wife was a prostitute and also that Bury used other Prostitutes. Bury reportedly had venereal disease that he caught from a Prostitute and gave to Ellen Bury.

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

HI Herlock.

Im pretty sure Bury's wife was a prostitute and also that Bury used other Prostitutes. Bury reportedly had venereal disease that he caught from a Prostitute and gave to Ellen Bury.

Cheers John

Hi John,

I thought that I’d read that but I wasn’t sure enough to state it as strongly. Can you believe that there are actually adults who think that Cross is a better suspect than Bury?! Mcnaghten’s wife is a better suspect than Cross.

Oh yeah, I forgot, she wasn’t there. Cross was…..that seals it then. Game over.

[Sam Flynn]

I'll add that George Chapman is also not a modern suspect. He was suspected by Abberline.

Indeed, but only in 1903, after Chapman's trial and execution. He wasn't (near)contemporaneously suspected of being JTR.

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

I thought that I’d read that but I wasn’t sure enough to state it as strongly. Can you believe that there are actually adults who think that Cross is a better suspect than Bury?! Mcnaghten’s wife is a better suspect than Cross.

Oh yeah, I forgot, she wasn’t there. Cross was…..that seals it then. Game over.

Hi Herlock

I can believe that there are adults who think Cross is a better suspect than Bury but I think those that do have problems with logical thinking.

Cheers John

[caz]

So, as you say, there's the East End taboo AND the fact that any criminal would know that the most idiotic thing to do would be to get in their sights.

Even worse for the killer to draw attention to himself and be identified as a man at a murder scene so early on in the game, when his priority was surely to remain free to kill again as soon as possible, and not make the mistake of being seen with any future victims.

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul Sutton]

Even worse for the killer to draw attention to himself and be identified as a man at a murder scene so early on in the game, when his priority was surely to remain free to kill again as soon as possible, and not make the mistake of being seen with any future victims.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, but 'serial killers like taking risks'!

I have it on the authority of both Fred 'Official biographer to the Krays' Dinenage and Professor David Wilson, a 'leading criminologist'.

[caz]

That must be right then - not!

Just don't mention Emilia Fox, or I may be ill.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mark J D]

I'm a long-time 'lurker' on this excellent board, with years spent reading every JtR book I can. The best (to me) are Scotland Yard Investigates and The Bank Holiday Murders; I've also a soft-spot for Richard Patterson's Jack the Ripper - The Works of Francis Thompson.

I've followed with particular interest the heated discussion about Cross/Lechmere. I applaud the indefatigable Fisherman (Christer) for his brilliantly original work, even though Lechmere seems unlikely. I'd like it to be true - it's clever and neat - but it feels unbelievable. The scant evidence and facts have been wrung dry, but I think most people's objections are also deeply intuitive, based on what seems plausible from their overview of the C5.

I realise that, after I get into discussion, I'll likely feel similarly argumentative! Which is fine: it's great to see the passion. That's why I've loved reading this blog and have joined.

I'll raise my ten objections to Lechmere [...]

I see that Ed Stow has released a video responding to these points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLgGm-C-lnk

Such a shame that Mr Sutton is no longer here to provide his reaction.

M.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have just watched the whole episode.

Just before the end, Stow claims that there was nothing about Sutcliffe to suggest that he might have been a killer, even though his background was entirely typical of that of sexual serial murderers.

He argues that Lechmere could have seemed quite normal yet been a serial killer.

That would be unusual.

He interprets Lechmere's every action in the light of his presumption of his guilt.

He repeats Holmgren's claim that Lechmere needed to get past Mizen, but Lechmere did not need to approach Paul, let alone Mizen.

He calls Lechmere a liar, but there is no evidence to support that allegation.

He claims Lechmere needed to be in control, but where is the evidence that his actions were anything other than those of someone who came across a dead body?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The case against Cross is the most egregious case of exaggeration and manipulation ever applied to a suspect in the case. Nothing really comes close. Nothing is suspicious about him in the slightest. This is why they have to resort to doing things like leaving out the 'about' to try and fabricate a gap of time. Cross found a body and nothing more. You can build a stronger case against John Richardson and he wasn't the ripper either. How has this lasted so long? Oh yeah...he has a fanclub with his own TV show. Next we'll be seeing a petition to number 10 Downing Street asking Parliament to name Cross as JtR. I'm waiting for the t-shirts and mugs to appear. How have people been suckered into this?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I knew I had left out something from my review of Stow's latest episode.

He dealt with the question of the reliability of Paul's timing, without making any reference to the testimony of three policemen at the inquest, all of whom contradicted it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I knew I had left out something from my review of Stow's latest episode.

He dealt with the question of the reliability of Paul's timing, without making any reference to the testimony of three policemen at the inquest, all of whom contradicted it.

Perhaps he forgot about them?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Perhaps he forgot about them?

I don't think so, Herlock, because our very own Roger Palmer pointed out the omission directly to Stow himself on another of Stow's presentations, which dealt with the alleged missing 7 1/2 minutes.

It seems to be a case of somehow always remembering to forget what must at all costs not be mentioned.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The video presentation is at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4MvBRw7XDA

Roger Palmer's comment was made a year or more ago, using the same name, and although there were replies from three people, Edward Stow was not among them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think so, Herlock, because our very own Roger Palmer pointed out the omission directly to Stow himself on another of Stow's presentations, which dealt with the alleged missing 7 1/2 minutes.

It seems to be a case of somehow always remembering to forget what must at all costs not be mentioned.

This is twice that we’ve agreed on something PI.

Are you getting worried?