Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Geddy2112]

Yes. I'm sure that everything about those two shops and their staff looked exactly like that, all the time.

I'm sure it didn't and you will note all the blood on the floor hidden by the sawdust.. The fact is it's another point of interest to dispel yet another 'red flag' in the long line of dispelled red flags. Now if Cross had been a slaughter or a knacker that is another question alas he was not.

[GBinOz]

Who needs speculation when we can just go straight to the violent criminals’ roster, right?

Next up: suspecting anyone who’s ever been involved in a fistfight, just in case we’re missing the obvious answer.

It’s almost as if we’re playing ‘Guess the Ripper’ bingo and looking for the most obvious suspects possible.




The Baron

Winner of the best "Sarcastic but True" award.

[Geddy2112]

1) He was at the scene of a murder not long after a victim had been killed.

2) His testimony was at odds to PC Mizen's.

3) He was 'forced' to go to the inquest.

4) Some of the murders happened close to his probably route to work.

5) We do not know what time he left home on the 31st Aug 1888.

6) He refused to prop up Polly Nichol's body.

7) We can't account for his movements prior to 3:40am on 31st Aug 1888.


....who are we talking about here? Charles Lechmere or Robert Paul?

[GBinOz]

1) He was at the scene of a murder not long after a victim had been killed.

2) His testimony was at odds to PC Mizen's.

3) He was 'forced' to go to the inquest.

4) Some of the murders happened close to his probably route to work.

5) We do not know what time he left home on the 31st Aug 1888.

6) He refused to prop up Polly Nichol's body.

7) We can't account for his movements prior to 3:40am on 31st Aug 1888.


....who are we talking about here? Charles Lechmere or Robert Paul?

All very good points!

[Pcdunn]

1) He was at the scene of a murder not long after a victim had been killed.

2) His testimony was at odds to PC Mizen's.

3) He was 'forced' to go to the inquest.

4) Some of the murders happened close to his probably route to work.

5) We do not know what time he left home on the 31st Aug 1888.

6) He refused to prop up Polly Nichol's body.

7) We can't account for his movements prior to 3:40am on 31st Aug 1888.


....who are we talking about here? Charles Lechmere or Robert Paul?

I'd say Paul, because the police had to track him down at home, following his interview, and get him to the inquest.
Lechmere went on his own.

[Geddy2112]

I'd say Paul, because the police had to track him down at home, following his interview, and get him to the inquest.
Lechmere went on his own.

Indeed, however Team Lechmere tend to argue he was 'forced' to go to the inquest because he read the 'Remarkable Statement.' (Which of course we have no evidence to support.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

As is too often the case, we are polar opposite in our opinions on this subject. JtR murdered his victims without coming to the notice of the police, so murdering and mutilating his wife and turning himself into the police fails to fit the profile. I see nothing exceptional about Bury. He was a drunken little no-hoper that married a woman to secure access to her inheritance, and disposed of her when he had squandered that inheritance and she had outlived her usefulness. He was the type of person that our American cousins would describe as a dime a dozen on any street corner - brainless and heartless. He is only obvious in that he fulfils the need to endlessly and interminably re-examine named suspects while the actual perpetrator buries himself in obscurity. Sorry for the rant my friend. I guess there was just one too many "there is no evidence against anyone but Bury".

Cheers, George

Hi George,

My point wouldn’t be that anyone should be considered as a A+ suspect but whatever anyone’s opinion of Bury he can’t fail to be a better suspect than Cross. Whatever the circumstances of Bury’s murder of his wife he still killed and mutilated her. He was still a violent man. He still had a connection to prostitutes and his move to Dundee provides an explanation for the cessation. Cross was in Bucks Row, just like every other man, woman or child in the history of crime who found a body outdoors (and he did it at just the place and time that we would have expected to have found him - which increases further the likelihood of his innocence)

I don’t get it George. I genuinely don’t. There’s not a single, solitary thing that suggests that Cross should be considered and a whole pile that suggests that he was innocent. Compare this to a murder/mutilator living in Bow. My opinion would be - could Bury have been the ripper, possibly. Could Cross have been the ripper, almost certainly not.

We could go on like this forever George but there’s no real point is there. We have a difference of opinion.