Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Geddy2112]

Dead / drunk tells the policeman that one is just dealing with another alcoholic who died on the street, not very uncommon.

Oh how many alcoholics died on the streets of Whitechapel in 1888?

Add to this Mizen sworn testimony that Lechmere told him he is wanted by another policeman in Buck's Row, and the hook will be digging even deeper!

Is this the same sworn testimony that Mizen said Cross and Paul were in his company at the end of Hanbury street at 3:45am. When the Lechmere theory demands that Paul was just entering Bucks Row then. You can't have it both ways sir.. although some do try, some do try.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Herlock,

...
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.

It would be a shame, as others have mentioned, to lose your input. With regards to Cross/Lechmere, the information we have has been thoroughly gone over, examined, and questioned, and like you, I see nothing in it that raises any red flags. The banner bearers for the "Cross/Lechmere is JtR" idea simply repeat the same low quality inferences, which prompt the same rebuttals in the hope the point will sink in, but instead get replied with "Oh, that old chessnut ...." in an attempt to dismiss the problems without ever having actually addressed them.

That isn't approaching a topic for discussion, and there is little point in engaging with those who are just going to disregard any input but who insist their every claim be taken as irrefutable.

Now, just to be clear, there are others who do discuss Cross/Lechmere, and even if their view falls in a different direction, they do consider points for and against, but simply may weigh the evidence differently. This makes for enjoyable interactions, that can be fruitful as one is exposed to different possibilities. Given the information we have to work with is so loose that nobody can ever consider all of the possibilities, so it helps to hear ideas one may have overlooked.

I think there are some extremely good contributions being made on these boards, with people contributing based upon their own particular skill sets and personal interests. Sure, sometimes discussions do get stuck in ruts, with wheels spinning and the same set of flawed reasoning or biasing descriptions being presented yet again with no signs of recognition of the problem (i.e. the above example of Stow's mis-representation of where Cross/Lechmere was standing when he stops and waits for Paul), but such people are never going to change.

In some ways, I see Cross/Lechmere as a good example of how research into JtR can be conducted and, after thorough examination of the information, is capable of ruling someone out. I accept that this ruling out might not be to the specifics one would want in a modern, ongoing, police investigation, but with historical cases, the bar is set to a different level. For those who feel that because there might be a configuration that puts him back in the running, the responsibility is on them to come up with new information, not just repeat previously flawed reasoning.

I've seen a number of posts, in various threads, where people do present new ideas, apply new approaches to the information we have, and so forth. I've also noticed a trend that those who do so tend not to have strong views on any particular suspect even if they do express some inclination towards some more than others, while those who do have a "suspect of choice", often shy away from conducting any new analysis or information other than making something up that is designed to fit their conclusion a priori (i.e. Fisherman's whole "Blood analysis" is just something he made up, where he gets to decide what the crime scene values are and what critical "values" are, and low and behold his critical values and the assumed values of the crime scene evidence all just happen to lead to the conclusion he wants! But when it is pointed out that his "blood flow" analysis is neither an accepted forensic analysis - so there's no actual information about what one should accept - or that the testimony is highly ambiguous and unlikely to mean what he claims it means - that gets ignored despite both being incredibly important and valid concerns that call into question the entire idea).

Anyway, while it is frustrating to re-read the same tired set of invalid, or even incorrect, arguments, once one notes that these are coming from a fairly limited number of individuals, in my view I think there is a lot of good stuff being put forth. Sadly, it seems the good stuff just gets less attention than the rubbish.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

there is little point in engaging with those who are just going to disregard any input but who insist their every claim be taken as irrefutable.

Now, just to be clear, there are others who do discuss Cross/Lechmere, and even if their view falls in a different direction, they do consider points for and against, but simply may weigh the evidence differently. This makes for enjoyable interactions, that can be fruitful as one is exposed to different possibilities. Given the information we have to work with is so loose that nobody can ever consider all of the possibilities, so it helps to hear ideas one may have overlooked.

I've seen a number of posts, in various threads, where people do present new ideas, apply new approaches to the information we have, and so forth. I've also noticed a trend that those who do so tend not to have strong views on any particular suspect even if they do express some inclination towards some more than others, while those who do have a "suspect of choice", often shy away from conducting any new analysis or information other than making something up that is designed to fit their conclusion a priori .

Anyway, while it is frustrating to re-read the same tired set of invalid, or even incorrect, arguments, once one notes that these are coming from a fairly limited number of individuals, in my view I think there is a lot of good stuff being put forth. Sadly, it seems the good stuff just gets less attention than the rubbish.

- Jeff

Well said Jeff.

[Lewis C]

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.

Hi Herlock,

I agree with this, but would add that there is one point that to me makes Cross less unlikely than Richardson. Not overall, but just on this specific point. The police looked into the possibility that Richardson may have killed Chapman, and after their investigation, didn't arrest him and don't seem to have considered after that that he might have been the killer. However, with Cross, we have no evidence that they looked into him as a suspect at all, so we can't be certain that he would have been cleared if they had looked into him. But still, overall, I agree that Cross is the weaker suspect of the two. Just barely, because in all probability Chapman was killed close to 5:30, in which case, there would be no reason to suspect either of them.