Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[rjpalmer]

And here we see how even the shaky possibility that Chapman might have been killed at later time than expected doesn't in any way, form, or shape distract from the Lechmere theory.

Of course, it does!! These idle speculations completely undermine the original theory and turn it to wish-washy mush, exposing its inherent weakness.

I'm not an advocate of the Lechmere theory, but at least Ed Stow had a coherent theoretical framework. The murders were allegedly being committed between 3:30 and 4:00 a.m along Lechmere's route to work. Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Kelly. It was "one coincidence too many."

If you are now arguing, "Well, in truth, we have no idea when he left for work on any given day, or even if he worked that day. On the day Chapman died he may have left at 5:10 a.m. instead of 3.30"

then how does it not undermine Ed's theory and weaken it?

If you're so willing to abandon the foundation of the theory whenever it becomes convenient, why suspect Lechmere in the first place?

At least Christer Holmgren realized the weakness of this scattergun approach, which is why he argued (not very persuasively, in my opinion) that Chapman had tied within the 'schedule.'

If Chapman was murdered between 3:45 and 4:00, then John Ricardson is lying, and he becomes the prime suspect in that murder. We know the police quietly investigated him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Joke Suspect.


> Cross had a simple, risk-free escape which he insanely rejected in favour of the huge and blatantly obvious-to-all risks involved in loitering around to meet a complete stranger who he had absolutely no influence over - On this point alone we can dismiss Cross as a suspect.

> There is absolutely no way that Cross could have walked from the body to the middle of the road with even the minutest level of confidence that the approaching stranger hadn’t seen him doing it. If he had been seen, and he said that he hadn’t been near to the body he would have been signing his own death warrant - Cross would have had to have been stupid or entirely careless of his own safety to have done this. Hardly a good start for a prospective serial killer and hardly the outlook of a man who evaded capture (which surely can’t be put down entirely to luck)

> We cannot name a single example in the entire history of crime of the witness who finds the corpse of his victim outdoors who turned out to have been the serial killer himself - This makes the chances of Cross being the killer about on a par with it being fairy on a unicorn. This point alone kicks this silly ‘suspect’ way out into the long grass of unlikelihood.

> The witness evidence, combined with the 100% certain fact that methods used at the time for judging ToD were unreliable, combine to the inescapable conclusion that Chapman was killed at around 5.30. That Cross killed 90 minutes into his shift is risible and shouldn’t be given a minutes consideration - This again makes Cross unlikely in the extreme as the killer of Annie Chapman.

> No suspect in the history of Ripperology has had so many examples of dishonesty, evidence manipulation, deliberate editing, barking mad ‘connections’ made and startling contortions of the English language been made (plus a propaganda machine in action) to try and shoehorn this innocent man into the role - No valid suspect would require this level ‘assistance.’ Clear evidence of the pathetic weakness of his joke suspecthood.

> The idea that Cross killed and mutilated a woman on his regular route to work, at his regular time of being there, leaving him less than 20 minutes to potentially clean up and get to work on time is a suggestion that can’t be proposed in seriousness - Yet another thing that dumps this pathetic suspect into the unlikely bin and pushes it of toward the horizon.

> Despite the constant cries of ‘he was there,’ we have to acknowledge that the police at the time also knew that he was there. And they knew that he was near to the body before Paul got there. As far as we know they didn’t have the slightest interest in him as a suspect - the police do get things right sometimes.

> Most suspects have something going for them: violence, suspected by the police, insanity, issues with women, issues with or a connection to prostitutes, and explanation for the cessation of the murders, a confession, suspicious behaviour, even a suspect like Gull can be credited with medical/anatomical knowledge - remarkably the feeble suspect Cross has none of these. Not one…and yet he’s a suspect, apparently. How? Oh yes, he was there, he was there, he was there. After all, no one has ever innocently found a body before have they?


Way past time to dump this embarrassment of a suspect.

[The Baron]

If you're so willing to abandon the foundation of the theory whenever it becomes convenient, why suspect Lechmere in the first place?

What an argument! I hope no one from the diary thread is reading this, Let's keep you guessing!



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Comparisons are often a good way of making a judgment and the comparison that I’m going to mention has been made before (by myself, Roger and others) but I’d like to re-state and expand slightly on it. It’s this. Who is the more ‘suspicious’ Charles Cross or John Richardson. Who is the worthiest of a second look? Despite not thinking that either was the ripper it’s my opinion that the answer is John Richardson by a considerable distance. So why the fuss about Cross?

(By the way, I’m 99.9% convinced that Annie Chapman was killed at a time close to 5.30. I believe that the evidence of three witnesses trumps Dr. Phillips unreliable estimate, but for the purpose of this exercise I’ll go with the Cross supporters [and some others who favour for an earlier ToD.])

1. He was there - yes they were both alone with a recently killed corpse (remember the paragraph above). Can we separate them? Yes, in two ways. Cross had to go to work and he would have used the same route every day so he had to be where he was but Richardson only checked the yard on market days. He did it as a favour to his mother; he wasn’t compelled to do it. I accept that this is a minor point but (1-0 Richardson) The second point is about being ‘found’ near to the body. Which of the locations was it easier to be ‘caught’ near a corpse? A backyard with one door or a whole street. Clearly it would have been much harder to get caught near a body in an open street, so (2-0 Richardson)

2. How long had they been there/ the gap - we only have the statements of both men for this so I’ll call this one equal, (Richardson 3 - Cross 1)


3. What was said - well we have the disagreement between what Cross said that he’d said and what Mizen said that he’d said; the actual content of which was trivial unless you interpret it in terms of a plan. Compare this to John Richardson claiming that the yard was empty when, according to Superdoc Phillips, there was an horrendously mutilated corpse lying one foot from his left boot. The level of ‘suspiciousness’ surely doesn’t compare? (Richardson 4 - Cross 1)


4. Murder weapon - well we all know that both Nichols and Chapman were both killed with a knife. Did Cross have a knife on him? Who knows? Did Richardson? Yes he did. (Richardson 5 - Cross 1)


5. The name thing - well we know that the name Cross was his stepfather’s so it certainly wasn’t an invented name and the fact that he gave his correct two forenames and his correct address proves conclusively that Cross wasn’t being dishonest or evasive. But as Cross-supporters by convenient default believe Mizen over Cross then, for consistency, they should believe Chandler over Richardson and Chandler claimed that Richardson hadn’t mentioned cutting his boot, so (Richardson 6 - Cross 1)


6. Anything else? - well, when asked to produce the knife that he’d cut his boot with, he brought one in and it was pointed out how blunt it was. Richardson then appeared to say that he hadn’t actually cut his boot with that one and that he hadn’t to do the job with one at the market, so (Richardson 7 - Cross 1)


7. Finally, do we have anything else against either of them violence, insanity, knife use, link to prostitutes, issues with women, suspected by the police, cessation of the murders. I’d say no, although I believe that the police might have initially raised an eyebrow or two over Richardson. I’ll score them equal on this point though.


Final score John Richardson 8 - Charles Cross 2



To sum up - I don’t think for a single second that either of these two men was Jack the Ripper. But if we look at what we know about either of them it’s absolutely beyond doubt that there is more that can be considered suspicious about Richardson than there is about Cross. So why does no one support Richardson and yet Cross has his own supporters club and TV channel? What kind of rabbit hole have we gone down? Just sit quietly and think over a cup of coffee or a beer. Have you ever know a ‘suspect’ with so little going for him get promoted so hard? Have you ever known one where people go to such lengths? Where they will edit evidence, mangle the language, make the most ludicrous of ‘connections?’ Why? Cross has nothing going for him apart from the obvious fact that, like every other person in the entirety of history who found a body, he was there. How from that do we get such enthusiasm and such a desperation that deception is deployed. Charles Cross as a suspect is fake news.

Why aren’t they waiving the white flag?




A suspect that’s a worse suspect than a crap suspect like Richardson shouldn’t be considered a suspect.

[Geddy2112]

A suspect that’s a worse suspect than a crap suspect like Richardson shouldn’t be considered a suspect.

There is more going for Robert Paul than these two bad boys...

[GBinOz]

Comparisons are often a good way of making a judgment and the comparison that I’m going to mention has been made before (by myself, Roger and others) but I’d like to re-state and expand slightly on it. It’s this. Who is the more ‘suspicious’ Charles Cross or John Richardson. Who is the worthiest of a second look? Despite not thinking that either was the ripper it’s my opinion that the answer is John Richardson by a considerable distance. So why the fuss about Cross?

(By the way, I’m 99.9% convinced that Annie Chapman was killed at a time close to 5.30. I believe that the evidence of three witnesses trumps Dr. Phillips unreliable estimate, but for the purpose of this exercise I’ll go with the Cross supporters [and some others who favour for an earlier ToD.])I wouldn't like to be labelled a "Cross supporter" but am happy to be in the bracketed group.

1. He was there - yes they were both alone with a recently killed corpse (remember the paragraph above). Can we separate them? Yes, in two ways. Cross had to go to work and he would have used the same route every day so he had to be where he was but Richardson only checked the yard on market days. He did it as a favour to his mother; he wasn’t compelled to do it. I accept that this is a minor point but (1-0 Richardson) The second point is about being ‘found’ near to the body. Which of the locations was it easier to be ‘caught’ near a corpse? A backyard with one door or a whole street. Clearly it would have been much harder to get caught near a body in an open street, so (2-0 Richardson)

I am inclined to think that it was a matter of check the yard or catch hell from Mummy. Of course, Richardson wasn't aware that he was near a body.

2. How long had they been there/ the gap - we only have the statements of both men for this so I’ll call this one equal, (Richardson 3 - Cross 1)

3. What was said - well we have the disagreement between what Cross said that he’d said and what Mizen said that he’d said; the actual content of which was trivial unless you interpret it in terms of a plan. Compare this to John Richardson claiming that the yard was empty when, according to Superdoc Phillips, there was an horrendously mutilated corpse lying one foot from his left boot. The level of ‘suspiciousness’ surely doesn’t compare? (Richardson 4 - Cross 1)
Once again, if we are going with the Cross supporters, the body was there but Richardson lied about the step/boot incident.

4. Murder weapon - well we all know that both Nichols and Chapman were both killed with a knife. Did Cross have a knife on him? Who knows? Did Richardson? Yes he did. (Richardson 5 - Cross 1)
Richardson had a Clayton's knife - the knife you have when you don't have a knife.

5. The name thing - well we know that the name Cross was his stepfather’s so it certainly wasn’t an invented name and the fact that he gave his correct two forenames and his correct address proves conclusively that Cross wasn’t being dishonest or evasive. But as Cross-supporters by convenient default believe Mizen over Cross then, for consistency, they should believe Chandler over Richardson and Chandler claimed that Richardson hadn’t mentioned cutting his boot, so (Richardson 6 - Cross 1)
Mizen may have been trying to excuse himself for not questioning Cross and Paul. What reason would Chandler have had for lying?

6. Anything else? - well, when asked to produce the knife that he’d cut his boot with, he brought one in and it was pointed out how blunt it was. Richardson then appeared to say that he hadn’t actually cut his boot with that one and that he hadn’t to do the job with one at the market, so (Richardson 7 - Cross 1)
The knife Richardson produced elicited much snickering amongst the Coroner and jury, which was what Richardson intended. Proffer a knife that couldn't make an impression on a block of butter on a warm evening.

7. Finally, do we have anything else against either of them violence, insanity, knife use, link to prostitutes, issues with women, suspected by the police, cessation of the murders. I’d say no, although I believe that the police might have initially raised an eyebrow or two over Richardson. I’ll score them equal on this point though.
I believe that the police raised more than an eyebrow or two over Richardson, but eyebrows don't qualify as proof for a conviction.

Final score John Richardson 8 - Charles Cross 2



To sum up - I don’t think for a single second that either of these two men was Jack the Ripper. But if we look at what we know about either of them it’s absolutely beyond doubt that there is more that can be considered suspicious about Richardson than there is about Cross. So why does no one support Richardson and yet Cross has his own supporters club and TV channel? What kind of rabbit hole have we gone down? Just sit quietly and think over a cup of coffee or a beer. Have you ever know a ‘suspect’ with so little going for him get promoted so hard? Have you ever known one where people go to such lengths? Where they will edit evidence, mangle the language, make the most ludicrous of ‘connections?’ Why? Cross has nothing going for him apart from the obvious fact that, like every other person in the entirety of history who found a body, he was there. How from that do we get such enthusiasm and such a desperation that deception is deployed. Charles Cross as a suspect is fake news.

Why aren’t they waiving the white flag?

A suspect that’s a worse suspect than a crap suspect like Richardson shouldn’t be considered a suspect.

Hi Herlock,

While comparisons may be good fun, they inevitably contain the prejudices of the proposer and those who are canvassed. I suspect that neither of us has a white flag in our kit bag. IMO, both Cross and Richardson are worthy of consideration, but I can accept that YMMV.

Cheers, George

[John Wheat]

I'm not even comfortable calling Cross a suspect. He was a witness and there's nothing to suggest he should be considered a suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not even comfortable calling Cross a suspect. He was a witness and there's nothing to suggest he should be considered a suspect.

I have to agree John. There’s not a single thing that makes him a suspect. He’s an invention. He was there. So what. He was a witness, nothing more. A two minute review of the evidence leaves you with no doubt of his innocence. Should be referred to as a suspect imo. I could name 100 more likely rippers…probably more.

[Geddy2112]

I mean this type of shenanigans does not help or the 'seen leaning over.' I hope the road works were in the way in this occasion but it does not look like it considering where Ed is standing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Are these people actually paying to listen to him make things up?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

While comparisons may be good fun, they inevitably contain the prejudices of the proposer and those who are canvassed. I suspect that neither of us has a white flag in our kit bag. IMO, both Cross and Richardson are worthy of consideration, but I can accept that YMMV.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

Ive actually looked at Richardson in favour of Cross supporters so any bias I’ve put in their favour (I don’t think that Richardson lied, I don’t think that it’s possible that he could have missed a corpse etc). On every point Cross comes second. Yes, we will have to agree to disagree but I’m not exaggerating when I say that it genuinely amazes me that people give Cross a second look. He’s not worthy of a second look but we’ve given him a thousand and he still comes up nowhere near to being a suspect. I’d eliminate him just on the fact that he didn’t flee. I’m really starting to lose interest in Ripperology and am considering moving on to another area because this subject is constantly being denigrated by treating people like Cross as a worthy suspect. I think it’s deeply sad that the study of the subject has come to this.