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

[Lechmere]

At least I didn't chop a foot off his height

[Lechmere]

Albert Cadosch? The guy who didn’t disappear but testified at Chapman’s inquest?

[DVV]

At least I didn't chop a foot off his height

No, you're just proving yourself a fool if you think Mary's Joe was working in a circus, and then has been the thinnest dock labourer ever.
But do as you wish, my dear.

[Lechmere]

I doubt the tall Fleming was Kelly's ex.
I doubt the tall Fleming worked in a circus and I don't doubt some skinny people worked in the docks.

At least with my witness turned suspect there is no record that says he was interrogated by no less a celebrity rozzer as Inspector Abberline!
Nor has an inconvenient relative come forward to claim him, who I am forced to diss!
I am in the luxurious position of being able to embrace everything known about Lechmere in order to build the case against him.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S:

But why NOT touch her? Wouldn't that have been a way of explaining any blood that may have splattered on his clothes?

Yes - and he DID touch her. But he refused to do so when Paul suggested that they should prop her up. If hw knew that she had had her head nearly cut off, that could be the explanation.

After all, it was dark and blood on his clothing would likely not be readily apparent (to himself or to Paul).

True.

If he were 'interrupted' by Paul he had not the time to inspect himself.

Also true. It would have been impossible in the darkness anyway.

Fact is, if he was the killer, he would have had no way of knowing if he had blood on his person or not.

Unless he could feel it, yes that is also true.

I would think that - as the brillinant psychopath he no doubt was - having inserted himself as a witness into his own murder and having no way of knowing if he'd be put in a bright room by the police who'd certainly subject him to some level of examination, he'd jump at the chance to explain away any tell-tale blood droplets that may have lept upon him whilst he slit Nichol's throat and carved her up.

Exactly - which is why he did touch Nichols repeatedly, her hand and her face.

I think you missed out on that point in my former post. The anomaly is: Why would he say "No, I won´t touch her" after having touched her hands and face? Because it would give away what had happened to her when they propped her up, that´s why.

So, Patrick, as the brillliant psychopath he was, he first procured the alibi, then avoided getting it revealed what had happened to her.

It`s a nuisance how these things backfire at times, eh?

The best,
Fisherman

Nothing's backfired. I didn't miss the point. It's safe to assume that he refused to move her, although he did touch her, with his hands. Had he moved the body, he'd have an eye witness to his doing so, and a concrete reason for having blood on his coat, pants, etc. His hands - along with his face - are likely the only areas of his body exposed. Therefore, he'd likely know if had blood on his hands or not (and clearly he did not as it was not noticed or remarked upon by anyone) Example. I had a nosebleed this morning. I didn't know it until I felt the blood on my hand, even though it was all over the front of my shirt.

You are doing a fine job of demonstrating the folly of arriving at a conclusion first and collecting evidence to support it second. You easily explain how all circumstances serve to damn Lechmere, because - to you - he is Jack the Ripper. You take every aspect of his behavior and use it to bolster your point of view. Yet you steadfastly refuse to accept differing interpretations, even if they make infinitely more sense...and you think a snide parting shot helps you make sense out of nonsense? It won't. You may recruit neophytes and an uniformed journalist or two. Congratulations.

[Barnaby]

But with an innocent Lechmere walking his lonesome trek, what we must have is another man walking the self same streets at these very hours.
A somebody else, killing Emma Smith, quite possibly hearing Lechmere´s footfalls as he passed by.
A somebody else hammering away at Tabrams trunk as Lechmere may have passed by thirty yards away.
A somebody else snuffing out Nichols just before Lechmere turned the corner into Buck´s Row (she was still bleeding even after Mizen had fetched the ambulance and returned with it!)
A somebody else luring Chapman into the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street and possibly listening to the clippety-clop of Lechmere´s shoes from the street as he killed her.
A somebody else carving up Kelly in Dorset Street - which represented a short cut from Hanbury Street to Broad Street - as our cheerful carman may well have carried his lunch-pack past the premises on that November morning.
Fisherman

Somewhat ironic if the Ripper had attracted a stalker! Maybe Lechmere was a citizen vigilante who put an end to his reign of terror! And - twist on a twist - for his efforts he is now a Ripper suspect.

Fisherman, you almost have me convinced that he is the best suspect regardless of what others will think of me for expressing that opinion, but I'm wondering how unique Lechmere is. How many car men (or men with similar reasons to be traversing the streets at that hour) lived in that critical area of Whitechapel? How many of these men would be walking these routes? Are we talking 1, 10, 100, 1000? I seriously have no clue but people did have jobs that required them to be at work at very early hours.

[bolo]

Hello Fisherman,

I think - as did representants for the police and medicos back then - that the killer need not have had any significant blood on him after Nichols - or any blood at all.
At any rate, it was pitch dark and most clothes were dark or black, so it would not be easy to see any droplets of blood even if they were there.

And of course, Lechmere would have had an alibi for any blood on his person after having examined Nichols at the crime scene.

The best,
Fisherman

my uncle was a farmer and my sister and I lived on his farm for months when we were little. On slaughtering day, we helped him with the pigs that got turned into Bratwurst every year and never came out without at least a bit of blood on our workwear. Cutting throats and ripping the belly open can't be done without getting your hands dirty so to speak, even if you take great care in keeping the first spray of blood away from you... ...and we worked in bright daylight, contrary to the murderer of Polly who did what he did at night without proper lighting and in a hurry.

Yes, Cross may have had an excuse for having blood on his HANDS but what about other droplets on his clothes, face, etc.? Fresh blood coming out of a wound has body temperature, if you get hit by it, chances are that you won't even notice it at first because it's just as warm as your skin. You may get hit by a few drops in the face and only notice it afterwards when you look into a mirror, that's another thing I've learned from uncle Siegfried's slaughtering days.

The knife in Polly's case was used against the throat with great force. The momentum of such a cut is enough to create at least some blood splatter, and don't get me started on the cuts on the belly/lower parts, all the more as the knife used wasn't that sharp (according to the doc).

I agree that the murderer probably took some care not to get soiled too heavily but I refuse to accept the idea that he got out there completely clean and shiny. This makes the case against Cross questionable in my eyes.

Best wishes,

Boris

[Fisherman]

Nothing's backfired. I didn't miss the point. It's safe to assume that he refused to move her, although he did touch her, with his hands. Had he moved the body, he'd have an eye witness to his doing so, and a concrete reason for having blood on his coat, pants, etc. His hands - along with his face - are likely the only areas of his body exposed. Therefore, he'd likely know if had blood on his hands or not (and clearly he did not as it was not noticed or remarked upon by anyone) Example. I had a nosebleed this morning. I didn't know it until I felt the blood on my hand, even though it was all over the front of my shirt.

You are doing a fine job of demonstrating the folly of arriving at a conclusion first and collecting evidence to support it second. You easily explain how all circumstances serve to damn Lechmere, because - to you - he is Jack the Ripper. You take every aspect of his behavior and use it to bolster your point of view. Yet you steadfastly refuse to accept differing interpretations, even if they make infinitely more sense...and you think a snide parting shot helps you make sense out of nonsense? It won't. You may recruit neophytes and an uniformed journalist or two. Congratulations.

You need to brighten up somewhat, Patrick. As for snide shots, you were actually the one who tried to be ironic about how a "brilliant psychopath" like Lechmere would have been such a dumbass as to miss out on the opprotunity to get himself an alibi ...

When it comes to the claimed refusalö on my behalf to accept other interpretations than my own, I reccommend you to go - or wade - through the thousands of exchanges where I say that I am quite aware that each and every anomaly knit to Lechmere could have had alternative, innocent explanations.
As far as I understand, that amounts to accepting other interpretations on every one of these points.
But you seem to crave that I must accept these other interpretations to the point where I abandon my stance that Lechmere is the best candidate for the Rippers role, and I´m afraid that is something I will not do until such evidence surfaces so as to justify that.
Now I´ll play nice and I won´t say that things backfired on you again, although I could have. I will just say that you are wrong. And of course, you are entitled to be so.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Barnaby:

Somewhat ironic if the Ripper had attracted a stalker! Maybe Lechmere was a citizen vigilante who put an end to his reign of terror! And - twist on a twist - for his efforts he is now a Ripper suspect.

That would be something - and look how close he came to capturing his man ...!

Fisherman, you almost have me convinced that he is the best suspect regardless of what others will think of me for expressing that opinion...

You are a brave man, Barnaby.

... but I'm wondering how unique Lechmere is. How many car men (or men with similar reasons to be traversing the streets at that hour) lived in that critical area of Whitechapel? How many of these men would be walking these routes? Are we talking 1, 10, 100, 1000? I seriously have no clue but people did have jobs that required them to be at work at very early hours.

There are two parameters involved, the routes and the timings. I have little doubt that Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street were trodden by myriads of people every day. But between 3 AM and 4 AM? Well, we don´t know, do we? And we should really focus mainly on Buck´s Row.

Lechmere did a fifteen or twentyfive minute trek from Doveton Street to Bucks Row (although it SHOULD not have taken him any more than seven minutes), and he saw not a living soul.
Paul spent a minute or two walking from Foster Street to Bucks Row, with the same outcome: Not one person was to be seen.
Hutchinson spent 45 minutes standing outside Millers Court. He saw two persons during all that time.
Halse sped through the streets adjoining Mitre Square, street up and street down. That netted two persons only, albeit he visited streets that were a lot bigger than the crammed Dorset Street and Bucks Row (he went through Middlesex and Wentworth and Goulston Street, for example - and on a Saturday night).

This gives a general picture of the East End Streets deep at night. Few people were out on them.

How many carmen were there in the East End who lived and worked in circumstances that meant that they would benefit both from walking Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street in an East-Westernly direction at 3 AM to 4 AM?
I really cannot tell.
I know that I have read somewhere that the carmen increased very much in numbers in London somewhere around this time, and I think a total number of some 60-70 000 was mentioned at some relatively relevant remove in time. Of course, that was for the whole town, not just the East End. But I will have to look into that more specifically and see if I can find it.

Basically, though, I think that only people who worked at the approximate position of Liverpool Street station would have had reason to use both thoroughfares. If they worked to the north of the station, they would not use Old Montague Street, if to the south, they would skip Hanbury Street. Very few people would have these streets represent more or less equally long paths to job, thus.
Plus to use Buck´s Row as a thoroughfare to these streets, they also needed to live in a restricted area to the East of that street. Or, of course, on it.

My own feeling is that if you want a number for how many carmen would have passed down Buck´s Row from East to West between 3 and 4 AM in the mornings, 1, 10, 100 or 1000, I would personally shoot for a number between 1 and 10. But I cannot substantiate it with anything else but what I said above about Lechmeres, Pauls, Halse´s and Hutchinsons testimonies, and the general observations made by the policemen and watchmen surrounding Buck´s Row, where they apparently said that they had not seen anybody pass into or out of the street at the relevant time.
There was an observation, I think, of two carmen passing down Brady Street, but I am not sure exactly when.
Then there is Mulshaw, who said that much as he had dozed off at times, he did not see anybody at all after midninght, apart from two PC:s. That means that Winthrop Street was more or less totally deserted for the three and a half hours plus leading up to the murder. Unless Mulshaw slept like a rock while the Royal Fusiliers marched by.

All the best, Barnaby!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

bolo: Hello Fisherman,

my uncle was a farmer and my sister and I lived on his farm for months when we were little. On slaughtering day, we helped him with the pigs that got turned into Bratwurst every year and never came out without at least a bit of blood on our workwear. Cutting throats and ripping the belly open can't be done without getting your hands dirty so to speak, even if you take great care in keeping the first spray of blood away from you... ...and we worked in bright daylight, contrary to the murderer of Polly who did what he did at night without proper lighting and in a hurry.

I´m sure many others have made the same experience, bolo, when participating at a slaughter. The risk will be there.

But let´s google away and look at a few pictures like these two:

http://karolinalinden.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/img_8308.jpg

http://www.svd.se/migration_catalog/Artikelbilder/1209378.svd/representations/d/veckansbilder8-bspec.jpg?1382107692000

These are slaughterers that have just cut the necks of animals. What I would ask you to do is to look at their hands! There is no blood on them that I can see. The second gentleman has specks of blood on his shirt, but that will not have come from cutting the neck of that oxen, they are apparently old specks. And the first gentleman carries out his work clad in shining white with very few specks on him.
But the main point I am making: The hands!

Then we add this:

http://arbetet.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ernstkouffer3811.jpg

Here´s a man who WILL have blood on his hands! But look at the apron and the clothes otherwise. Can you see much blood on them? I can´t. And this guy, mind you, knows that he does not have to be careful about any blood, he could just change his apron if he got bloodied.

Of course, the pig would probably have been killed and perhaps bled before he got to handle it, but to some extent Nichols was bled too.

Yes, Cross may have had an excuse for having blood on his HANDS but what about other droplets on his clothes, face, etc.?

If they were there in his face and apparent, they would have him hung. Which is why I conclude they were not.

Fresh blood coming out of a wound has body temperature, if you get hit by it, chances are that you won't even notice it at first because it's just as warm as your skin.
You may get hit by a few drops in the face and only notice it afterwards when you look into a mirror, that's another thing I've learned from uncle Siegfried's slaughtering days.

Absolutely true. Killing with a knife always carries risks with it.

The knife in Polly's case was used against the throat with great force. The momentum of such a cut is enough to create at least some blood splatter, and don't get me started on the cuts on the belly/lower parts, all the more as the knife used wasn't that sharp (according to the doc).

Let´s begin by acknowledging that there was no gush of blood on the pavement beneath Nichols. She may well have been dead as he cut her, having been strangled before that. It seems the blood poured out less violently than with a living person, where there will be a substantial jet of blood shooting out.
And if he handled her like the gentleman in the shining white on the pic linked to above, his hands would be equally clean.

Then there is the question of the abdominal wounds. In Nichols case, we have no missing organs, so we should not expect the killer to have plunged his hands into her abdominal cavity.
Therefore it applies that the force with which he cut away will have governed what splatter there was (or was not) to a very significant extent. Plus we have the possibility that he may have used her clothing as a makeshift shield. After that, there is even the possibility that he could have worn gloves.
So it´s a hard, hard call to make.

I agree that the murderer probably took some care not to get soiled too heavily but I refuse to accept the idea that he got out there completely clean and shiny. This makes the case against Cross questionable in my eyes.

It was pitch dark, he may have worn dark clothes, and a carman was not expected to be completely clean and shiny in the first place, bolo. The work he did would have "coloured" how he looked, if you see what I mean. Many carmen will have delivered meat, for instance. Of course, Lechmere would probably not have. But he would have the advantage of not being looked upon with suspicion because he was not shiningly clean and spotless when working.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Patrick S]

You need to brighten up somewhat, Patrick. As for snide shots, you were actually the one who tried to be ironic about how a "brilliant psychopath" like Lechmere would have been such a dumbass as to miss out on the opprotunity to get himself an alibi ...

When it comes to the claimed refusalö on my behalf to accept other interpretations than my own, I reccommend you to go - or wade - through the thousands of exchanges where I say that I am quite aware that each and every anomaly knit to Lechmere could have had alternative, innocent explanations.
As far as I understand, that amounts to accepting other interpretations on every one of these points.
But you seem to crave that I must accept these other interpretations to the point where I abandon my stance that Lechmere is the best candidate for the Rippers role, and I´m afraid that is something I will not do until such evidence surfaces so as to justify that.
Now I´ll play nice and I won´t say that things backfired on you again, although I could have. I will just say that you are wrong. And of course, you are entitled to be so.

The best,
Fisherman

I'm not asking you to play nice and I wasn't pointing out your parting shot as a complaint. I love a debate and I'm always honest when I come out on the short end. If you change my mind, I'll tell you, and I'll advocate for your position going forward. Up to now, you haven't. In fact, the more I look at Lechmere, the less likely a Ripper he becomes. That's my honest opinion. I have no doubt your honest in your feelings to the contrary. Thus, a debate. I'm a big boy and can take a few shots. You are passionate and informed and I'm open to changing my mind. Like agent Mulder, "I want to believe."

[Lechmere]

The way I see the blood situation is this.
Whoever did it had a potential problem with blood either spouting or splashing onto them or through getting their hands bloody via simple transfers when too close to the open wounds.
However, given that whoever did it remained undetected, it seems likely to me that he was very careful and managed to avoid getting much noticeable blood on him.
Given the voluminous clothing worn by the victims I would guess that the culprit would have wiped his hands and his knife on their garments.
Of course some blood could have splashed out and the culprit may have been unaware of this until much later – perhaps when he looked in a mirror.
Most of the victims show signs of strangulation which would have minimised blood spouting out.
In the Nichols case there as very little blood found at the crime scene and what there was seems to have oozed out.
Taking the Nichols case specifically, I also would suggest that the killer would probably have stood or learnt over her astride her head and upper body, lifted her clothing and mutilated the abdomen with the clothing acting as a shield. I think this makes sense because his main focus would probably have been on someone coming from the direction of the Board School which was the nearest dead ground to the crime scene. By facing that way he would get quicker warning of an interloper’s approach.

I think this is how Lechmere did it and that is also how Paul managed to approach so close, from behind, before Lechmere became aware of his presence, by hearing his footsteps.
I think Lechmere made an instantaneous decision to bluff it out. He will have wiped his blade and stashed it in his clothing and quickly wiped his hands as he allowed the dress to fall back down over the wounds. This was necessary to buy time, or at the very least give him flexible options. Ideally he would not want the interloper to immediately know that the victim was dead – and indeed not just dead but mutilated.

After the swift wiping of hands and knife I think he reverse a couple of steps into the road, which is when Paul saw him.
Paul saw him – he didn’t heard him. Even though supposedly Lechmere must have been walking 40 or so yards in front of him from the moment Paul emerged from his house around the corner in Forster Street.
It should be remembered that PC Neil was to hear PC Thain walking some 150 yards away on Brady Street, from the same location.

Lechmere approached Paul, Paul though he was about to be mugged and went to avoid Lechmere.
Lechmere tapped him on his shoulder and drew Paul to look at the body.
Lechmere got Paul to touch the body.
This is the only recorded instance where discoverers started touching the body
Why get Paul to touch the body?
Because it would allow for Paul to have blood on him and gave an excuse for Lechmere to also have blood on him.
But when Paul went too far and offered to ‘shift her’ – i.e. prop her up – Lechmere demurred. In my opinion this was because at that stage there was uncertainty over whether she was dead or had just fainted (hence Paul’s suggestion that they prop her up). If he was propped up, in the process her head would fall back exposing the vicious neck wound. making it blatantly obvious she was dead. Hence Lechmere did not want to prop her up.

Paul then said he was late for work – Lechmere mirrored him and said he as late too.
They could then leave what Paul assumed was a comatose woman with no urgency to tell a policeman anything particularly drastic had happened.

This episode gave Lechmere the excuse for having blood on him in case Paul or anyone else noticed any.
The whole touching aspect is another anomaly in this case, to go alongside the covered abdominal wounds and the twofold discovery and the name change and the Mizen disagreement.

[Sally]

Forget the book, Ed - write the script. It doesn't matter if it's pure fantasy - once its up there on the big screen, everyone will believe it. William Gull?? Who??

He'll be forgotten in the new 'Carman' craze.

Just remember not to cast Abberline as a drug-addled idiot - and no Americans.

[Lechmere]

Incidentally for the schools you have a date of leaving from one and a date of admission to the other.
There could quite easily be a gap between the two dates, but there isn’t for the Lechmere children.
It incidentally pin points the time as 12th June 1888.
We obviously don’t have individual registers showing daily attendance.

Never missing an entry in the electoral register for about 3 years despite moving six times is I would suggest unusual nowadays – let alone then.
Having all eleven children baptised was not very usual.
A carman opening shops in three different premises while being a carman was unusual.
A carman leaving a tidy sum in his will was unusual.
Having over 100 records for such a humble person is unusual.

However you cut it these things are unusual. Pretending they are commonplace is being unrealistic.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S:

I'm not asking you to play nice and I wasn't pointing out your parting shot as a complaint.

Okay, Patrick. However, I have seen far too much of people not playing nice out here (and I´ve participated in that myself too), and I´ve grown tired of it. I would love to have a nice, factual debate where everybody was willing to both proclaim points won and concede points lost gracefully. Sadly, that is not going to happen, I think, But I´m prepared to be surprised on that point!

I love a debate and I'm always honest when I come out on the short end. If you change my mind, I'll tell you, and I'll advocate for your position going forward. Up to now, you haven't.

That´s fair enough, Patrick.

In fact, the more I look at Lechmere, the less likely a Ripper he becomes. That's my honest opinion.

Once again, I´m fine with honest opinions. However, I asked you before about how you explain tha correlation between Lechmere´s logically trodden paths and timings and the murders - if you think he is a bad candidate, how do you explain this matter? I would love to hear that!

I have no doubt your honest in your feelings to the contrary.

Nor should you!

Thus, a debate. I'm a big boy and can take a few shots. You are passionate and informed and I'm open to changing my mind. Like agent Mulder, "I want to believe."

There will be no shots unless I am subjected to any shots myself, Patrick. And I know that you can take shots anyhow - so far, they have dripped away from you like water on a goose.

I find it a bit strange how people (not necessarily you) shy away from what they have ordered themselves: A grey man, a man with an occupation that would have allowed him to be in place at awkward hours when others slept. That is what has been asked for more than once on the boards.
Considering that this grey man has been garnished with a proven nameswop, anomalies a plenty, a set of disinformation and lies apparently fed to the police and a background that tallies with many serialsts, missing biological father figure and all, one would have thought that should go a long way to meed the requirements, but no - he won´t do for you (and many others).

Personally, I suspect that there are those who would prefer drinking poison to admitting that Lechmere is a good bid, and that will to a significant part owe to personal chemistry - or rather the lack of it.

I have had it suggested that men like Sickert and Blotchy would be equally good or better bids, and on a factual level, that is beyond preposterous. The fact alone that Lechmere was actually found standing right beside the body of a very freshly killed woman is enough to seal his role as a top contender for the Ripper title. And that´s before we add all other ingredients.

But such is human nature! Hunches we have are deemed better than other people´s facts. And that too is fair enough on many levels - many crimes have been solved after lucky hunches on behalf of investigators.
But it taints the overall picture of Ripperology when a man like Lechmere does not even have a place as a suspect on the boards, for example.
Likewise, to people watching this from the outside, many choices that are made here will utterly confuse onlookers with no preferences, hunches or agendas.

On Lechmere, there is always more to come! There is ongoing research, and all sorts of things coming up. I once predicted that anything that surfaced around him was more likely to clinch his role as the killer than to exonerate him. And that was before I "discovered" and wrote about the so called Mizen scam...

At the end of the day, we will almost certainly, as a certain poster (too) often expresses himself, never reach any consensus about who the killer was. Too much personal pride has been invested for that to reasonably happen.

But when the fog lifts, I am confident that Lechmere will count as top Ripper material. On a practical level, he is lightyears ahead of the others.

All the best,
Fisherman