A Cross by any other name...smells like JtR?

[Patrick S]

I can do better than that - I can give you the facts myself:

From April to November 1888, there were seven so called Whitechapel Murders. They were:

Emma Smith
Martha Tabram
Polly Nichols
Annie Chapman
Elizabeth Stride
Catherine Eddowes
Mary Kelly

Out of these seven, five may well have been killed at 3 AM - 4 AM, roughly speaking.
Smith staggered over her treshold at around 4 AM, mortally wounded.
Tabram was judged to have died shortly before 3 AM.
Nichols died at around 3.40-3.45, seemingly.
Chapman was judged by Phillips to have died at the very latest 4.30, but probably before that hour.
Kelly is hardest to determine a TOD death for, but Prater heard the "Oh, murder!" scream at some time before 4 AM.

Lechmere said he walked to work at 3.20 or 3.30, but may of course have added some extra time if he wanted to.

He had two roughly equally long thorougfares to choose from after Buckīs Row: the northern Hanbury Street route and the southern Old Montague Street route. From the Hanbury Street route, there was a shortcut to be made, that led him through Dorset Street.

Smith was assaulted at the corner of Old Montague Street and Brick Lane. Distance from Old Montague Street: 0 yards.
Tabram died in George Yard. Distance from Old Montague Street: Around 30 yards.
Nichols died on Bucks Row. Distance from Lechmeres work trek: 0 yards.
Chapman died at 29 Hanbury Street. Distance from Lechmeres work trek: 0 yards.
Kelly died in Dorset Street. Distance from Lechmeres short cut: 0 yards.

Five victims. All attacked along the roads Lechmere would logically have used when going to work and quite probably at times that fit his trekking time.

Stride died in Berner Street. Berner Street was situated north of Cable Street, where Lechmeres mother, Maria Louisa, lived together with Lechmeres daughter, and represented a thorougfare on the way home to Doveton Street after a visti to his mothers.
Stride died at 12.45-01.00, and it was on a Saturday, Lechmeres day off from work.

Eddowes died in Mitre Square, at 1.45, approximately. The square could be reached from Berner Street by employing Lechmeres old working route from James Street to Broad Street.

Mitre Square was also quite close to Pickfords in Broad Street, where Lechmere could have dumped trophies. With him from Mitre Square, the Ripper brought a kidney and a womb.

PC Alfred Long stated with confidence at the inquest that the apron piece that he found in Goulston Street at 2.55, had NOT been in place there at 2.20. Therefore, we may need an explanation to where the killer was for at least thirtyfive minutes, before dropping off the apron piece.
My suggestion is that he took the apron piece and the trophies to Pickfords in Broad Street, washed up there and stashed the body parts, and that he left for Doveton Street, where he lived, afterwards. If he used for example the narrow Devonshire terrace after having left Broad Street, then Goulston Street - where the apron was at 2.55 but apparently not at 2.20 - would be smack, bang on his route home.

If Lechmere was not the killer - then why is it that the killings appear along the routes to his work or from his mothers place, and at times that seem to roughly tally logically with his movements?
Given the hundreds and thousand streets that there were in the East End, why does not a single one of the murders occur on a street where Lehmere did NOT have any reason to pass through?

And why is it that Stride and Eddowes -the only victims that were killed relatively early in the evening, before Lechmereīs work trek time - were both killed on the same Saturday, leaving us with the possibility that he did the deeds after having visited his mother and daughter.

Changearounds to this schedule would ruin the pattern.

If any of Smith, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly had been killed on streets that did not tally with his working trek, we would be at a loss with our theory in that regard.
If any of them had been killed at the hours when Stride and Eddowes were, we would be at a loss with our theory in that regard.

But they donīt. They fall in place like pearls on a necklace string, one by one.

Take the nameswop, the Mizen scam, the pulled down dress, the fact that none of Lechmere or Paul said that they had heard the other man walking close by in Bucks Row, take all these anomalies - and then check his logical routes to see if the suspicions pan out.

Once you have let this sink in, I would - if I may - like to ask you: Thoughts, Patrick?

The best,
Fisherman

Thanks! I shall let it sink it. Study it. Research it. And respond. Likely tonight or tomorrow.

[DVV]

I canīt make anybody a victim of anybody, David.
The same goes for you, actually.
I can look at the facts and suggest a solution.
So can you.
Do you think Hutchinson killed Martha Tabram, David?
As an aside, around 70 per cent agree that Tabram was probably a Ripper victim.
Fisherman

I'm pretty sure she's a ripper victim, and dead sure her killer never used any bayonet, Fish.

70 percent ? Very well. But actually I don't care much. When it comes to Emma Smith, I suppose it's less than 30 percent, but I still consider her a ripper victim.

And yes, I believe the man who called himself Hutch after the Kelly inquest killed Martha Tabram.

[Fisherman]

Fish,

I haven't, but I will now.

MrB

Itīs not any fantastic book by any means. But it suggests a conclusion or two that are interesting to our discussion.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

are you making Tabram a Lechmere's victim now ?

Cheers

I canīt make anybody a victim of anybody, David.

The same goes for you, actually.

I can look at the facts and suggest a solution.

So can you.

Do you think Hutchinson killed Martha Tabram, David?

As an aside, around 70 per cent agree that Tabram was probably a Ripper victim.

Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

I haven't, but I will now.

MrB

[DVV]

Hi Fish,

are you making Tabram a Lechmere's victim now ?

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Fish,

Don't forget the Pinchin Street/horse meat connection!

MrB

I wonīt. You will hear more about it in the future.

By the way, did you ever read Trowīs book on the Torso murders?

Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

Don't forget the Pinchin Street/horse meat connection!

MrB

[Fisherman]

I haven't been able to find the info on the board yet. Can you send a link?

I can do better than that - I can give you the facts myself:

From April to November 1888, there were seven so called Whitechapel Murders. They were:

Emma Smith
Martha Tabram
Polly Nichols
Annie Chapman
Elizabeth Stride
Catherine Eddowes
Mary Kelly

Out of these seven, five may well have been killed at 3 AM - 4 AM, roughly speaking.
Smith staggered over her treshold at around 4 AM, mortally wounded.
Tabram was judged to have died shortly before 3 AM.
Nichols died at around 3.40-3.45, seemingly.
Chapman was judged by Phillips to have died at the very latest 4.30, but probably before that hour.
Kelly is hardest to determine a TOD death for, but Prater heard the "Oh, murder!" scream at some time before 4 AM.

Lechmere said he walked to work at 3.20 or 3.30, but may of course have added some extra time if he wanted to.

He had two roughly equally long thorougfares to choose from after Buckīs Row: the northern Hanbury Street route and the southern Old Montague Street route. From the Hanbury Street route, there was a shortcut to be made, that led him through Dorset Street.

Smith was assaulted at the corner of Old Montague Street and Brick Lane. Distance from Old Montague Street: 0 yards.
Tabram died in George Yard. Distance from Old Montague Street: Around 30 yards.
Nichols died on Bucks Row. Distance from Lechmeres work trek: 0 yards.
Chapman died at 29 Hanbury Street. Distance from Lechmeres work trek: 0 yards.
Kelly died in Dorset Street. Distance from Lechmeres short cut: 0 yards.

Five victims. All attacked along the roads Lechmere would logically have used when going to work and quite probably at times that fit his trekking time.

Stride died in Berner Street. Berner Street was situated north of Cable Street, where Lechmeres mother, Maria Louisa, lived together with Lechmeres daughter, and represented a thorougfare on the way home to Doveton Street after a visti to his mothers.
Stride died at 12.45-01.00, and it was on a Saturday, Lechmeres day off from work.

Eddowes died in Mitre Square, at 1.45, approximately. The square could be reached from Berner Street by employing Lechmeres old working route from James Street to Broad Street.

Mitre Square was also quite close to Pickfords in Broad Street, where Lechmere could have dumped trophies. With him from Mitre Square, the Ripper brought a kidney and a womb.

PC Alfred Long stated with confidence at the inquest that the apron piece that he found in Goulston Street at 2.55, had NOT been in place there at 2.20. Therefore, we may need an explanation to where the killer was for at least thirtyfive minutes, before dropping off the apron piece.
My suggestion is that he took the apron piece and the trophies to Pickfords in Broad Street, washed up there and stashed the body parts, and that he left for Doveton Street, where he lived, afterwards. If he used for example the narrow Devonshire terrace after having left Broad Street, then Goulston Street - where the apron was at 2.55 but apparently not at 2.20 - would be smack, bang on his route home.

If Lechmere was not the killer - then why is it that the killings appear along the routes to his work or from his mothers place, and at times that seem to roughly tally logically with his movements?
Given the hundreds and thousand streets that there were in the East End, why does not a single one of the murders occur on a street where Lehmere did NOT have any reason to pass through?

And why is it that Stride and Eddowes -the only victims that were killed relatively early in the evening, before Lechmereīs work trek time - were both killed on the same Saturday, leaving us with the possibility that he did the deeds after having visited his mother and daughter.

Changearounds to this schedule would ruin the pattern.

If any of Smith, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly had been killed on streets that did not tally with his working trek, we would be at a loss with our theory in that regard.
If any of them had been killed at the hours when Stride and Eddowes were, we would be at a loss with our theory in that regard.

But they donīt. They fall in place like pearls on a necklace string, one by one.

Take the nameswop, the Mizen scam, the pulled down dress, the fact that none of Lechmere or Paul said that they had heard the other man walking close by in Bucks Row, take all these anomalies - and then check his logical routes to see if the suspicions pan out.

Once you have let this sink in, I would - if I may - like to ask you: Thoughts, Patrick?

The best,
Fisherman

[Patrick S]

No, Patrick, you donīt come across an uncivil. These boards are littered with personal attacks, and you donīt even come close to it, so you can breathe out on that point.
Iīm sorry to be persistent, but would you consider giving me an answer to my question about the geographical/time/murderplace point?

All the best,
Fisherman

I haven't been able to find the info on the board yet. Can you send a link?

[MrBarnett]

Hi Lechmere,

My point was that such notifications are logically done in advance, then as now. Only the very feckless would turn up at the school gates with 11 children in tow and demand that they be admitted. Lech, or Mrs Lech, would have arranged things in advance and that strikes me as quite unremarkable for a reasonably stable family as the Lechmere's appear to have been.

I find Lech an increasingly convincing candidate, but I feel that some of the 'pillars' of his candidacy are somewhat shaky, in particular the Cross/Lech name and the emphasis on 'obsessive' form filling.
l
MrB

[Fisherman]

FrankO:

The point I was trying to make, Christer, is that I find it odd that Lechmere, the killer who’s able to come up with relatively complex & risky solutions, apparently wasn’t able to come up with a simple, important & efficient idea to lose the knife. I find that a striking oddity and for me another weakness, however small in your view, in the scenario you and Edward support.

I know thatīs the point you were trying to make, Frank. But is it a good point? Would not a knife found under the body of a victim where there was a solitary bystander point a finger straight at him?
A killer that had time to get away could surely have A/ Displayed the victim the way the others were displayed (and I know that we canīt bank on them actually beeing displayed, but the cushion Kelly was served with makes me think...), and B/ Taken the murder weapon along with him.

It wouldn’t matter why it was left there, Fish. Simply because, once it left the hand of whoever killed Nichols, the police would never ever be able to prove which person had held it in his hand.

The only one who ran the risk of being caught red (or knife-) handed was Lechmere, Frank. Another killer - if there ever was such an evasive character - would not have run that risk other than if he was stopped and searched. It can equally be said that the knife could have been of a character that would have led the police to the killer. What if it was engraved "Lechmere"? Ridiculous? Perhaps so, but there could have been many pointers to the owner nevertheless, we just canīt tell.
Leaving the knife behind would also mean an economical loss in an age where many people struggled, plus he would need to replace it. And people walking into stores asking for the sharpest knife they had, with a long enough blade to ... eh ... fillet rabbits, would have been looked upon with suspicion.

No, I donīt think the suggestion is a very good one, Iīm afraid, and I am much inclined to think that a psychopath would feel certain that he could easily trick anybody if the problem arose.

We differ, as we sometimes do.

Why would that be? He could very easily have directed Paul to one side of the body – the way he saw to it that he would be the one to do the talking to Mizen and that Paul was out of earshot at that point - and hid it on the side he would be on. Why would it be difficult to kill Paul with it?

It would perhaps not be difficult as such. But risky. His ordinary prey were defenceless, drunken and sickly women, Frank. A fit carman is another proposition. If he did not want Paul to cry out, for example, he needed to choke him first - the risks involved would be huge.

Yes, I am, Fish.

Sorry, Frank. I disagree.

Me too Fish, just as I would be interested to hear if there are examples of murderers who killed with the knife before the 1890s, who had almost been caught in the act and who didn’t lose the knife while they had taken other precautions to minimize getting caught after all.

That sounds like a tough research enterprise to me. I donīt think you will find yourself a statistically viable measure of examples. Plus the parameters will vary from deed to deed.
But if you ever take the task on, Iīd be interested to hear the outcome.

With what you wrote it seemed that you acknowledged that it wasn’t too smart not to lose the knife, but at the same time I suspected that it would turn out not to be the case. Which you have shown now…

Ah! Well that explains what you wrote - it had me slightly baffled. No, I didnīt reason like that!

The best, Frank!
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

He couldn't have thrown the knife as it would make a clattering noise.
He could conceivably have placed it under her clothing but as he was intending to bring the interloper to the body it may have been found there and the intention I suspect was to bluff it out that she may be comatose and a bloody knife would suggest something else.
I think the more natural impulse would be to stash it about his person.
If it was not Lechmere then he almost certainly must have unwittingly disturbed whoever did do it and that person did not abandon his knife.
As fisherman said it's quite possible that he felt attached to the knife.

[Fisherman]

Again, I don't disagree that Cross/Lechmere can be viewed as exactly what we've been looking for with respect to his access to area, etc. I'm with you on that point. My issues are with his behavior at the murder scene, and an MO that - to me - doesn't make sense (i.e. committing murder and mutilations on his way to work). Where you see suspect behavior, I see a no consciousness of guilt. Where you see a man with a plan, I see a man acting rationally (in his behavior with Paul at the body). Of course, the whole scenario is shrouded by 130 years, where the mundane can (and often does) become damning evidence of....well...something to hide. I grant you the name issue. You have converted me on that. It's odd and not so easily explained (again, from 130 years on).

I hope I've not seemed uncivil or prone to personal attacks. I have great respect for anyone who's done the amount of research that you clearly have.

No, Patrick, you donīt come across an uncivil. These boards are littered with personal attacks, and you donīt even come close to it, so you can breathe out on that point.
Iīm sorry to be persistent, but would you consider giving me an answer to my question about the geographical/time/murderplace point?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Lynn
You need to approach Lechmere's testimony from the perspective that he might not have been telling the truth with every syllable, as if he was guilty he would have coloured his story.
If one is judging whether someone is guilty it is usually sensible to treat their own account with a degree of scepticism.
I would suggest he would have lied about just enough to clear himself but stuck to the truth as much as possible, and he wouldn't have wanted to be too useful as he wouldn't want to be retained.