The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[The Baron]

How can the two be compared? Cross is a non-starter.

oh yeah….he was there, he was there, he was there! That’s it.

See, you are getting it lastly, it was not that difficult was it..

Now go put Bury at any of the murder's spots and we promise to look at him for you.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cross is an awful suspect. The simple fact that he was there makes him massively unlikely. In an empty, echoing street how could Paul have sneaked up to get so close to Cross that he couldn’t escape? It’s clearly nonsense. Cross heard him coming and waited for him. The killer would undoubtedly have escaped into the darkness.

Cross doesn’t deserve to be classed as a suspect. Normal bloke, going to work, finds a body, tells a Constable, goes to work, lives a normal life as far as we can tell.

Bury, father killed in a horrible accident when he was young, consorted with prostitutes, violent, murdered and mutilated his wife, left London a couple of months after Kelly.

How can the two be compared? Cross is a non-starter.

oh yeah….he was there, he was there, he was there! That’s it.

[The Baron]

Certain people couldn't live without me

Both Bury and Lechmere are persons of interests.

But in the case of the man who was spotted standing close to the freshly killed woman, here we have a person of most interest, who should thoroughly be investigated and cleared.

Personally I think Lechmere if a suspects stands heads and shoulders above Bury.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

And Herlock with his usual auto response isn't shutting down debate.

I don't understand why?

How do you come up with phrases like ‘usual auto response?’ I’ve gone over events in Bucks Row in as much detail as anyone and over as long a period of time, so to try and portray me as someone that just jumps in with the occasional meaningless comment stands for little Newbie. I made the comment because Cross is close to unique in my opinion in that he’s the first ripper suspect that has a publicity campaign and a team of spin doctors, all of whom are willing to plumb any depth and scrape the bottom of any barrel in an attempt to shoehorn this clearly innocent man into the ripper’s shoes. How much time, effort is wasted on this man. I’m bored with it but I haven’t tried to stop anyone else talking about him. You are clearly a convert to the cause so you are free to fill your boots for as long as you like but I prefer reality to the Waco Compound of the Church of Cross.

There isn’t a single piece of evidence to suggest that Charles Cross was ever alone at close quarters with Mary Nichols. Absolutely nothing. He could have been alone with her for a time just as John Davis could have been alone with Annie Chapman or George Morris could have been alone with Catherine Eddowes or Louis Diemschitz could have been alone with Liz Stride or Thomas Bowyer could have been alone with Mary Kelly. Nothing about the nature of the injuries or the location suggests that he was ever alone with her, so we are left with nothing more than a possibility that applies just as much to other witnesses too. Nothing to make Cross stand out though except for an ongoing publicity campaign. So why is he of interest?

The supposed time gap which has got numerous people rubbing their chins and saying ‘aha!’ Built on a piece of evidence editing of course. Cross said that he left the house at ‘around’ 3.30. And, as per 3 Constable’s, it looks like Paul met Cross at around 3.40/1 ish then Cross could easily have left the house at 3.32 or 3.33. Go gap can be proven or implied. It should never be mentioned again.

The name thing has been refuted in so much detail that comment is superfluous on his use of the name Cross and as he clearly didn’t benefit from it then there’s nothing remotely suspicious. It’s simply another example of dishonesty. It should never be mentioned again.

We have no record of violence or any kind of mental health issue from Cross so there’s nothing in that area that might raise an eyebrow…so I’m struggling to see the attraction of this man as a suspect?

We can’t find a single example from history of a serial killer killing on the way to work and so close to being nearly there.

We can’t really find a person who found a butchered body in the street who turned out to be the killer.

We can’t find a killer who refused a clear opportunity of escape to stand around for a chat with a complete stranger whilst in possession of a bloodied knife.

And if the witnesses were correct (and they almost certainly were) then Cross was at work when Chapman was killed.

We have a man who worked for the same company for years, was married for years and left his family well-provided for.

So….what makes this man a person of interest? Absolutely zero. He’s of no more interest than Morris or Hutchinson or Richardson or any number of ‘well they were vertical at the time’ candidates. He’s a rubbish suspect who has had far too much time wasted on him by the biased preaching to the gullible.

And what’s rich, and a perfect example of ‘thinking’ in some quarters, is that here we have The Baron discussing the possibilities of this non-suspect when he’s recently made post after post trying to eliminate a man living nearby who consorted with prostitutes and murdered and mutilated a women before fleeing London a couple of months after the Kelly murder! And he considers him a non-suspect.

I’ve said it before but where has the sense of balance gone on this subject?

[The Baron]

He's preferable to Paul, Baron.

The air certainly went out of the balloon rapidly on that one.

Imagine a guy killing in the morning, and then seeking out the press in the afternoon to declare he was a witness!

Paul the ripper was almost always an attempt to undermine the Lechmere theory, I agree that the case against Paul the talkative and attention seeker is very lean.


The Baron

[rjpalmer]

Imagine a guy killing in the morning, and then seeking out the press in the afternoon to declare he was a witness!

Rule #1 of Lechmerean thought: state speculation as a proven fact.

Paul 'sought out the press.'

Not proven. One can just as easily read it as Paul told people at the market what he had seen that morning, or even told a constable, and the Lloyd's reporter chased him down in Forster Street. In fact, it makes a lot more sense than the reporter randomly stopping everyone walking up Buck's Row later that night.

Further, there are any number of cases where murderers talked to the press as if they relish the publicity.

Here's ten examples, but there are better ones than these.

10 Convicted Murderers Who Gave TV Interviews Before Being Arrested - Listverse

I don't think Paul was the Ripper, but bad arguments are bad arguments.

[The Baron]

What makes Cross special, is that Mrs Nichols wasn't seen with anyone that night, until Paul spotted Cross near her freshly killed body.


The Baron

[Newbie]

Or Neil was the Ripper


The Baron

He's preferable to Paul, Baron.

The air certainly went out of the balloon rapidly on that one.

Imagine a guy killing in the morning, and then seeking out the press in the afternoon to declare he was a witness!

[Newbie]

Or that all the above didn't occur until AFTER they had left the scene.

Nichols may have been strangled, made unconscious and had superficial abdominal wounds initiated...

but then the Ripper is disturbed by the sound of Lechmere approaching.

The question is...did the Ripper have anywhere to hide WEST of the kill site throughout the duration of Lechmere and Paul's intervention?

What if the Ripper felt he couldn't leave and abandon the scene and had to hide in the shadows in the hope he could finish Nichols off once Lech and Paul had gone?

it would have taken no more than a minute to step out from the shadows, cut Nichols throat and then leave just before PC Neil arrived.


Food for thought



RD

Hello Rookie Detective,

I'd think that once having avoided Lechmere / Paul, he'd call it a day.
He had a chance to do more with Liz Stride, but quickly left.

Annie Chapman got two throat slashes .... that might have been his M.O. in his early shaky days.

[The Baron]

Or Neil was the Ripper


The Baron

[The Rookie Detective]

That both Lechmere and Paul didn't notice the wide open eyes and the pool of blood under the woman's head tells me that at least one of them might be lying.


The Baron

Or that all the above didn't occur until AFTER they had left the scene.

Nichols may have been strangled, made unconscious and had superficial abdominal wounds initiated...

but then the Ripper is disturbed by the sound of Lechmere approaching.

The question is...did the Ripper have anywhere to hide WEST of the kill site throughout the duration of Lechmere and Paul's intervention?

What if the Ripper felt he couldn't leave and abandon the scene and had to hide in the shadows in the hope he could finish Nichols off once Lech and Paul had gone?

it would have taken no more than a minute to step out from the shadows, cut Nichols throat and then leave just before PC Neil arrived.


Food for thought



RD

[The Rookie Detective]

It also concerns me a bit ... his looseness with language when he describes having discovered a dead / dying woman 4 minutes earlier.
Dead / drunk tells the policeman that one is just dealing with another alcoholic who died on the streets ..... even today not uncommon;
"You are wanted" .... although not uncommon vernacular, mislead Mizen on what happened. Mizen had lived and worked in the East end for a long, long time. He should have been aware of nuances in east end jargon.

Lech of course, had some knowlege in how beat cops of the area went about their business.

By itself, not damning ... but another WTF moment from CAL.


I thought about the eyes wide open bit in PC Neil's testmony... how dark was it? PC Neil used a lantern to discern the face.
Lechmere seemed to prefer that Paul not find that out, but it would hardly sink him if Paul did.

Lechmere certainly seemed to position himself over the upper portion - holding her hand,
compelling Paul to investigate the lower region.

If I were Paul, I'd be half watching the new guy to my left who I first spotted moments ago, next to the body.

In the end, Paul was the guy Lechmere had to convince, if he killed Polly Nichols and put on a bluff.

No PC was going to check him for a knife, as Christer suggests, unless he acted guilty.

One of the key points associated with the combined reaction is that neither Lechmere or Paul gave any indication to PC MIZEN that Nichols had been ATTACKED; ergo, another individual had been involved at the scene.

Lechmere states "dead or drunk"

Finding a woman laying dead in the street through drink and/or a fall from having been drunk, is not the same as her having been outraged.

And yet, the mention of thinking Nichols had been outraged, then changes the dynamics of what Lechmere stated.

In other words, WHY didn't Lechmere OR Paul add the important crucial detail that they thought she had been outraged?

By only telling Mizen the words "dead or drunk' it nullifies Mizens response because he appeared to have no idea that Nichols was in ACTIVE distress and needed help.


So we have at least one of Lechmere and Paul who thought that Nichols may have been outraged, but NEITHER of them thought to tell Mizen.


Why?


There is of course another explanation that explains their lack of urgency to get help, the medical evidence based on the chronology of wounds inflicted, and why neither of them saw any wounds or blood...

Here's a little hypothesis to consider...

The Ripper overpowers Nichols after having followed her west along from Brady Street. The direction of travel (westbound) is corroborated by at least 2 witnesses who heard a woman calling for help outside their shop shortly before Nichols was murdered. As the Ripper lays her down he begins to attack her abdomen, whispering/chanting away as he works (whispering heard by a witness in the house yards away from the murder site)
A train then passes.
The ripper intiates the attack on Nichols abdomen, but Nichols isn't dead, only unconscious. The Ripper then heard footsteps approaching and so quickly walks west towards the board school and manages to hide just as Lechmere arrives at the scene. The Ripper waits and watches from the darkness as Paul then joins the scene within a minute of Paul's arrival.
The men check Nichols who at this point has NO neck wounds and is still alive but only just after having been strangled by the Ripper earlier.
The men see no blood because there isn't any at this point except for the superficial ones that the Ripper started but had to stop because of Lechmere approaching.
Nichols eyes are also closed at this point

The Ripper waits for Lechmere and Paul to leave and then he RETURNS to the body.
He then chooses to cut her throat to ensure that she is dead, and as he does so, Nichols feels the blade and reacts through an automated pain response and her eyes open as a result (this is backed up by neurological science whereby eyes can open as a response to suffering a great pain or shock at the point of death) Her eyes being open support this idea.

The Ripper is then frustrated that he doss not have time to continue his abdominal and genital mutilations because of being interrupted.

He then makes a choice to leave, possibly by vaulting over the wall beside the murder site and then carefully down and on to the railway track.

"the right track haha"


Either way, the Ripper leaves just before PC Neil arrives.


This sequence would support Lech and Paul entirely
This sequence supports the medical evidence
This sequence only requires a valid place for the Ripper to hide for the 2 to 3 minutes duration that Lech and Paul were there on the scene.

And so...

Nichols is initially attacked by being strangled and incapacitated and suffering superficial abdominal wounds

Then Lech and Paul have a 3 minute intervention

Then the Ripper needs to ensure Nichols is dead so she can't recover and later identify him. He therefore has no choice but to wait for Lech and Paul to leave and to return to Nichols to cut her throat to cover his back.

Its possibly his first kill and perhaps he never intended to cut anyones throat, because he was all about strangulation to achieve control and to stop the victims BP, so that he can then mutilate post mortem.

Maybe Nichols was a complete mess up and he had to adapt quickly by going BACK to Nichols to make sure she was not going to recover.



That would mean that the Ripper was with Nichols both before AND after Paul and Lechmere were on the scene.


Just a hypothesis of course.


Thoughts?


RD

[The Baron]

It also concerns me a bit ... his looseness with language when he describes having discovered a dead / dying woman 4 minutes earlier.
Dead / drunk tells the policeman that one is just dealing with another alcoholic who died on the streets ..... even today not uncommon;
"You are wanted" .... although not uncommon vernacular, mislead Mizen on what happened. Mizen had lived and worked in the East end for a long, long time. He should have been aware of nuances in east end jargon.

Lech of course, had some knowlege in how beat cops of the area went about their business.

By itself, not damning ... but another WTF moment from CAL.


I thought about the eyes wide open bit in PC Neil's testmony... how dark was it? PC Neil used a lantern to discern the face.
Lechmere seemed to prefer that Paul not find that out, but it would hardly sink him if Paul did.

Lechmere certainly seemed to position himself over the upper portion - holding her hand,
compelling Paul to investigate the lower region.

If I were Paul, I'd be half watching the new guy to my left who I first spotted moments ago, next to the body.

In the end, Paul was the guy Lechmere had to convince, if he killed Polly Nichols and put on a bluff.

No PC was going to check him for a knife, as Christer suggests, unless he acted guilty.

That both Lechmere and Paul didn't notice the wide open eyes and the pool of blood under the woman's head tells me that at least one of them might be lying.


The Baron

[Geddy2112]

Once, the 4:00 am deadline was sacrosanct, and you hailed it as an irrefutable bulk work to Lechmere's innocence.

Now, you want to sweep all numbers under the rug and harrumph that we can't

Again I'm sorry I'm not sure you are talking to me but you did quote me. I've not mentioned anything about a 4am deadline. We can make assumptions, we can generalise but one thing we can't do with any certainty is pin point exact times in this case. If you do not believe Lechmere he could have left home at 2:30am, 2:45am or even 3:00am to go looking for a lady. I say that is very highly unlikely but the fact is we simply do not know and if we do not know we can't be certain with any timings in the case, it's impossible to be precise.
I asked my good lady three times for the time today without looking at her watch. Not once was she within 10 mins.

[Geddy2112]

And Herlock with his usual auto response isn't shutting down debate.

I don't understand why?

To be honest there is not much to debate anymore, unless something new comes along. I'm more into the Lechmere threads (as mentioned a few times) because I wish to try and understand how a clearly innocent man on his way to work at the time and place he was supposed to be is fingered as being the most notorious serial killers of all time. I'm trying to not find the thing that proves he is guilty but rather more and more things to prove he was innocent.
I may be banging my head against the wall of course but there must be something somewhere out there that will finally put a stop to this nonsense. Herlock's motives are probably different to mine.

Enjoy your day!