Charles Cross?

[Harry D]

Anybody who fails to see the potential relevance of these matters - and indeed anybody who denies that Lechmere is the prime suspect - is either unfit to research the case, deluded or simply egotistically defending theories of their own, whether that is a theory that points somebody else out or simply a theory that the killer never will be found.

I hope the irony wasn't lost on anyone else.

Crossmere is the kind of 'everyman' suspect I could get on board with. It's just too bad that none of the so-called evidence stands up to scrutiny.

[pinkmoon]

Gacy didnt start killing until after his marriage had ended and he had been divorced. He then went to live on his own and then started his killings, all of those took place in the confines of his home.

Gacy is not a good example of the point you are trying to get across

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Wasn't gacy under police surveillance for quite a period of time this would have stopped him from killing but because of this you couldn't say he stopped voluntary.

[pinkmoon]

I am going to make one post on this thread, but no more. It will be grounded on this post of Pinkmoons, and on the statement that "somebody had to find the body", often repeated when discussing Lechmere.

First: Have I or Edward really "asked you to believe" that Lechmere woke up one morning and found that he was no longer murderous or dangerous? And have we stated that he went on to live happily ever after?

I donīt think so.

Nor do I think that it is in any way proven that he did so.

I would like to use John Wayne Gacy as an example here. Gacy, a homosexual trapped in a marriage to a woman, killed 33 or 34 men over a period of six years.
During this time, he was regarded by people as a pillar of society. He had a building contracting firm, and he was involved with the democratic party, he volunteered a lot of job for the community and even worked as Pogo the clown to help out in hospitals etcetera. He met and shook hands with Rosalynn Carter, the First Lady of the US.

He was successful, relatively wealthy and commonly regarded as mr Nice Guy.

During this span of six years, when he killed people in horrific fashions, I am not sure whether Pinkmoon would have been able to see right through him and expose him as the serialist he was. Perhaps - but I doubt it.

So, we now know from this example that serial killers who perform grisly deeds can coexist with the nice and friendly people in society and actually mix with them without being found out. A madman, a psychopath, a killer of dozens can do this. Surprise, surprise!

Thatīs half of the argument gone. Sometimes, we canīt tell them from us. If we could, they would all end up in jail double quick. But they donīt, do they?

The other half of the argument claims that a killer like this is unable to quit killing. But we know for certain that serialists can and have stopped. So thatīs actually the rest of the argument gone. Of course, many serialists will go on killing unless they are stopped - but there is no absolute rule telling us that this always will be the case. And trying to quantify how it is more hard for killers who produce very ugly scenes to stop than it is for those who leave more quiet scenarios behind them is simply bonkers. It comes close to the argument that the killer must have committed suicide after Millers Court, since it shows us how his brain gave way totally.

This is a very Victorian argument. It didnīt work then and it doesnīt work now. People can kill in absolutely horrific manners, and NOT feel like killing themselves afterwards. People can kill in absolutely horrific manners and all the while keep up a surface where they project themselves as pillars of society. Surprise, surprise. Again!

Finally, there can be no certainty that Charles Lechmere actually stopped killing after Kelly! He may well have gone on killing. The Pinchin Street torso, for example, of september 1889, could have been his work. And so could numerous other murders. Dozens of them.

Saying that he would not have been able to kill in any other fashion than by ripping ā la Kelly, is simply an assumption that cannot be substantiated. Have serialists been known to change their mo:s? Yes, they have. So could this killer have? Yes, he could.

And if he did, then how could he stay on the loose? Once again, look at Gacy. How could HE stay on the loose for six years? How could HE keep up appearances? Arenīt we supposed to be able to tell?

And if Gacy could do it - then who is to say that Lechmere could not? A quiet, modest, healthy life is a quiet, modest healthy life. Unless you are a serial killer - then it is a facade instead. Surprise, surprise!

Letīs now return to the original argument - it is stated that I and Edward would have asked you to believe that Lechmere changed to a good person overnight after the Kelly murder.

Have we?

And did he?

Which is proven?? If you think about it?

As for "somebody had to find the body" - once again, and for the thousand time: Yes, unless the body was annihilated or hidden, somebody had to find it.

But that somebody did not have to find it at the exact remove in time that Lechmere did. That somebody did not have to use another name than his real one at the ensuing inquest. That somebody did not have to surface only after Pauls interview. That somebody did not have to disagree with the serving pc about what was said.

PC Mizen said that the blood was still running and appearing fresh as he saw the body. That means that he was speaking about the time when he joined Neil some four, five or six minutes after Lechmere had left the body. A number of pathologists have told me that a body with the kind of damage that Nichols had would NORMALLY bleed out quickly. I specifically asked one pathologist whether it would happen in three, five or seven minutes. The reply was that all three timings COULD apply - but the two shorter ones were the more realistic bids. Seven minutes was less realistic. Of course, after that, any addition of further time would be further unrealistic.

So Nichols COULD have been cut before Lechmere was with her body, there is room for that - but the more REALISTIC bid is that she was not.

Mizen also said that the blood was somewhat congealed at this stage.
It was not ungongealed.
It was not fully congealed.
It was partly congealed.
Congealing NORMALLY becomes visible to the eye after three or four minutes. It is NORMALLY completed in about seven minutes.

That means that somebody else than Lechmere COULD have cut Nichols. And that her blood COULD have congealed slower than normally. So there COULD have been another killer.
But if her blood congealed at the rate blood normally congeals, then Lechmere is actually the only truly feasible killer. And the pathologist gave the same verdict: He would not say that Lechmere must have been the cutter, but he agreed that he was smack, bang in the middle of the time frame.

These are facts. They all point clearly to Lechmere. They tell us that an alternative killer is an unlikely figure. But this has been brushed aside out here, and no doubt it will be so again, By ex-policemen, for example - who really should know a lot better!

But here, personal tastes and prestige inevitably gets the better of sound reasoning. Not in the sense that alternative explanations are offered for Lechmereīs viability. Such explanations should be offered. That is not where the problem lies.

The problem instead lies in a fear to admit the very clear implications pointing to Lechmere, combined with a sometimes touching - and other times revolting - unwillingness to leave old stances and suspects.
This has resulted in people telling me that "suspects" that have been plumped for with no other underlying reason than an appeal to different theorists, a correlation with what they specifically think describes a serial killer, are de facto just as good suspects as Lechmere is.

They are emphatically not.

Of course, inbetween themselves, these people have varying perceptions about exactly what it is that makes a serialist. But that does not stop them from suggesting men that have no connection whatsoever to the Whitechapel murders. None. Zilch. Nada.

And all the while, there is a man who was found alone with a freshly killed victim, a man who fits the blood evidence, a man who was not listed by the police by his official name bacause he gave ANOTHER name, a man who was claimed by a serving pc to have produced a lie that seemed tailormade to take him past the police on the murder night, a man that seemingly had ample time on his hands to be the killer.

Anybody who fails to see the potential relevance of these matters - and indeed anybody who denies that Lechmere is the prime suspect - is either unfit to research the case, deluded or simply egotistically defending theories of their own, whether that is a theory that points somebody else out or simply a theory that the killer never will be found.

Iīm sorry to spoil the party, but this has in all probability already happened.

Now I will leave you all to once again "debunk" the theory, with earthshattering arguments like "he would not have put the innards in his pockets" (no innards were taken in Buckīs Row), "he would never have stopped" (as if you know that he did) and "thousands of men would have walked that route" (although we have clear indications of empty streets). Ignorance is something I would not begrudge anybody, so carry on, by all means.

Just donīt claim things on my behalf that I have never said or suggested. I can see how it much facilitates the campaing against Lechmere, but it is not a very decent thing to do.

Argue away, but do it intelligibly, please.

All the very best,
Fisherman

Very interesting post thank you the points you make in it can be argued though. like all the other people we've had proposed as jack the ripper cross/Lechmere can only be classed as a theory not as a "suspect" if cross/Lechmere was put on trial for the Nichols murder any defence barrister could destroy it quite easily.p.s could anybody point me in the direction of a murder scene photo more horrendous than poor Mary's.

[Trevor Marriott]

I would like to use John Wayne Gacy as an example here. Gacy, a homosexual trapped in a marriage to a woman, killed 33 or 34 men over a period of six years.

Gacy didnt start killing until after his marriage had ended and he had been divorced. He then went to live on his own and then started his killings, all of those took place in the confines of his home.

Gacy is not a good example of the point you are trying to get across

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[pinkmoon]

Pink, you should never play with Ouija boards.

Never have and never will

[Robert]

Pink, you should never play with Ouija boards.

[Fisherman]

... we are asked to believe that after killing all these poor women he woke up one morning and was no longer a dangerous psychopath basically we are asked to believe that after the revolting murder of poor Mary Kelly (check the murder science photo out) he got better and went on to live happily ever after.

I am going to make one post on this thread, but no more. It will be grounded on this post of Pinkmoons, and on the statement that "somebody had to find the body", often repeated when discussing Lechmere.

First: Have I or Edward really "asked you to believe" that Lechmere woke up one morning and found that he was no longer murderous or dangerous? And have we stated that he went on to live happily ever after?

I donīt think so.

Nor do I think that it is in any way proven that he did so.

I would like to use John Wayne Gacy as an example here. Gacy, a homosexual trapped in a marriage to a woman, killed 33 or 34 men over a period of six years.
During this time, he was regarded by people as a pillar of society. He had a building contracting firm, and he was involved with the democratic party, he volunteered a lot of job for the community and even worked as Pogo the clown to help out in hospitals etcetera. He met and shook hands with Rosalynn Carter, the First Lady of the US.

He was successful, relatively wealthy and commonly regarded as mr Nice Guy.

During this span of six years, when he killed people in horrific fashions, I am not sure whether Pinkmoon would have been able to see right through him and expose him as the serialist he was. Perhaps - but I doubt it.

So, we now know from this example that serial killers who perform grisly deeds can coexist with the nice and friendly people in society and actually mix with them without being found out. A madman, a psychopath, a killer of dozens can do this. Surprise, surprise!

Thatīs half of the argument gone. Sometimes, we canīt tell them from us. If we could, they would all end up in jail double quick. But they donīt, do they?

The other half of the argument claims that a killer like this is unable to quit killing. But we know for certain that serialists can and have stopped. So thatīs actually the rest of the argument gone. Of course, many serialists will go on killing unless they are stopped - but there is no absolute rule telling us that this always will be the case. And trying to quantify how it is more hard for killers who produce very ugly scenes to stop than it is for those who leave more quiet scenarios behind them is simply bonkers. It comes close to the argument that the killer must have committed suicide after Millers Court, since it shows us how his brain gave way totally.

This is a very Victorian argument. It didnīt work then and it doesnīt work now. People can kill in absolutely horrific manners, and NOT feel like killing themselves afterwards. People can kill in absolutely horrific manners and all the while keep up a surface where they project themselves as pillars of society. Surprise, surprise. Again!

Finally, there can be no certainty that Charles Lechmere actually stopped killing after Kelly! He may well have gone on killing. The Pinchin Street torso, for example, of september 1889, could have been his work. And so could numerous other murders. Dozens of them.

Saying that he would not have been able to kill in any other fashion than by ripping ā la Kelly, is simply an assumption that cannot be substantiated. Have serialists been known to change their mo:s? Yes, they have. So could this killer have? Yes, he could.

And if he did, then how could he stay on the loose? Once again, look at Gacy. How could HE stay on the loose for six years? How could HE keep up appearances? Arenīt we supposed to be able to tell?

And if Gacy could do it - then who is to say that Lechmere could not? A quiet, modest, healthy life is a quiet, modest healthy life. Unless you are a serial killer - then it is a facade instead. Surprise, surprise!

Letīs now return to the original argument - it is stated that I and Edward would have asked you to believe that Lechmere changed to a good person overnight after the Kelly murder.

Have we?

And did he?

Which is proven?? If you think about it?

As for "somebody had to find the body" - once again, and for the thousand time: Yes, unless the body was annihilated or hidden, somebody had to find it.

But that somebody did not have to find it at the exact remove in time that Lechmere did. That somebody did not have to use another name than his real one at the ensuing inquest. That somebody did not have to surface only after Pauls interview. That somebody did not have to disagree with the serving pc about what was said.

PC Mizen said that the blood was still running and appearing fresh as he saw the body. That means that he was speaking about the time when he joined Neil some four, five or six minutes after Lechmere had left the body. A number of pathologists have told me that a body with the kind of damage that Nichols had would NORMALLY bleed out quickly. I specifically asked one pathologist whether it would happen in three, five or seven minutes. The reply was that all three timings COULD apply - but the two shorter ones were the more realistic bids. Seven minutes was less realistic. Of course, after that, any addition of further time would be further unrealistic.

So Nichols COULD have been cut before Lechmere was with her body, there is room for that - but the more REALISTIC bid is that she was not.

Mizen also said that the blood was somewhat congealed at this stage.
It was not ungongealed.
It was not fully congealed.
It was partly congealed.
Congealing NORMALLY becomes visible to the eye after three or four minutes. It is NORMALLY completed in about seven minutes.

That means that somebody else than Lechmere COULD have cut Nichols. And that her blood COULD have congealed slower than normally. So there COULD have been another killer.
But if her blood congealed at the rate blood normally congeals, then Lechmere is actually the only truly feasible killer. And the pathologist gave the same verdict: He would not say that Lechmere must have been the cutter, but he agreed that he was smack, bang in the middle of the time frame.

These are facts. They all point clearly to Lechmere. They tell us that an alternative killer is an unlikely figure. But this has been brushed aside out here, and no doubt it will be so again, By ex-policemen, for example - who really should know a lot better!

But here, personal tastes and prestige inevitably gets the better of sound reasoning. Not in the sense that alternative explanations are offered for Lechmereīs viability. Such explanations should be offered. That is not where the problem lies.

The problem instead lies in a fear to admit the very clear implications pointing to Lechmere, combined with a sometimes touching - and other times revolting - unwillingness to leave old stances and suspects.
This has resulted in people telling me that "suspects" that have been plumped for with no other underlying reason than an appeal to different theorists, a correlation with what they specifically think describes a serial killer, are de facto just as good suspects as Lechmere is.

They are emphatically not.

Of course, inbetween themselves, these people have varying perceptions about exactly what it is that makes a serialist. But that does not stop them from suggesting men that have no connection whatsoever to the Whitechapel murders. None. Zilch. Nada.

And all the while, there is a man who was found alone with a freshly killed victim, a man who fits the blood evidence, a man who was not listed by the police by his official name bacause he gave ANOTHER name, a man who was claimed by a serving pc to have produced a lie that seemed tailormade to take him past the police on the murder night, a man that seemingly had ample time on his hands to be the killer.

Anybody who fails to see the potential relevance of these matters - and indeed anybody who denies that Lechmere is the prime suspect - is either unfit to research the case, deluded or simply egotistically defending theories of their own, whether that is a theory that points somebody else out or simply a theory that the killer never will be found.

Iīm sorry to spoil the party, but this has in all probability already happened.

Now I will leave you all to once again "debunk" the theory, with earthshattering arguments like "he would not have put the innards in his pockets" (no innards were taken in Buckīs Row), "he would never have stopped" (as if you know that he did) and "thousands of men would have walked that route" (although we have clear indications of empty streets). Ignorance is something I would not begrudge anybody, so carry on, by all means.

Just donīt claim things on my behalf that I have never said or suggested. I can see how it much facilitates the campaing against Lechmere, but it is not a very decent thing to do.

Argue away, but do it intelligibly, please.

All the very best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

Indeed. The murder had to be committed on his route to work in order for him to be the person who found the body! Cross / Lechmere reacted by flagging down the next person he saw and drawing the situation to the attention of the first policeman he saw. That is exactly what I would expect any responsible citizen to do. I don't see what else he could have done. All the huff and puff has just about demonstrated that he could have committed the Nichols murder - which is a long way short of proof that he actually did it.

Pretty simple really isn't it.

If it wasn't on his way to work, he wouldn't have found her and we'd never have heard his name.

"Could have" AND "did", a mile apart.

[Bridewell]

Just because the murders were committed along his route to work, doesn't mean Cross did it.

Indeed. The murder had to be committed on his route to work in order for him to be the person who found the body! Cross / Lechmere reacted by flagging down the next person he saw and drawing the situation to the attention of the first policeman he saw. That is exactly what I would expect any responsible citizen to do. I don't see what else he could have done. All the huff and puff has just about demonstrated that he could have committed the Nichols murder - which is a long way short of proof that he actually did it.

[pinkmoon]

one of the biggest myths in serial homicide, along with killers never change their MO, is that serial killers never stop of their own accord. Kemper is a prime example of it. Sure it is not common, but it happens and that dosnt even include the possibilities of serial killers who stopped of their own accord that we don't know about because the cases are unsolved.
Not only that but serial killers have been known to stop for extremely long periods of time, not just a few months, but many years!

similar to this is the argument that possible suspects "Toppy" Hutchinson and Lechmere couldn't have been the ripper since they went on to have long "normal" lives/marriages. MANY serial Killers have apparent "normal" lives and relationships. The double life is part and parcel of many a serial killer.

There's murder and there's murder and theres what happened to Mary Kelly but when you view the revolting photo of poor Mary's remains its impossible to even consider whoever is doing this is slightly normal just can't comprehend how someone can do that to a fellow human being and soon after become "normal" just can't see it sorry.

[Abby Normal]

one of the biggest myths in serial homicide, along with killers never change their MO, is that serial killers never stop of their own accord. Kemper is a prime example of it. Sure it is not common, but it happens and that dosnt even include the possibilities of serial killers who stopped of their own accord that we don't know about because the cases are unsolved.
Not only that but serial killers have been known to stop for extremely long periods of time, not just a few months, but many years!

similar to this is the argument that possible suspects "Toppy" Hutchinson and Lechmere couldn't have been the ripper since they went on to have long "normal" lives/marriages. MANY serial Killers have apparent "normal" lives and relationships. The double life is part and parcel of many a serial killer.

[pinkmoon]

It's just a theory that has blown up into something big nothing wrong with theories but people need to keep their feet on the ground and like I said for this too work we have to accept that one morning Mr cross woke up no longer a physcopath in other words he got better .

I think everyone would have to agree he would not stop by his own free will something must have stopped him the most obvious death,incarceration and illness .

[Harry D]

It's just a theory that has blown up into something big nothing wrong with theories but people need to keep their feet on the ground and like I said for this too work we have to accept that one morning Mr cross woke up no longer a physcopath in other words he got better .

It's a myth that serial killers cannot stop themselves, but I think it all comes down to the type of killer we're dealing with. A casual killer who only shoots/stabs people, sure. Maybe he loses the thrill and substitutes killing for something else. But I think the Ripper was the kind of guy who couldn't help himself. He's attacking women in dangerous locations, sometimes twice in one night, and wasn't daunted by the increased police presence on the streets. For him, the murder is only a means to an end. It was the violent post-mortem mutilations and organ reaping that drove him, I think we can all agree. It's very hard to believe that the person responsible for the Miller's Court horror show was able to hang up his apron afterwards and call it a day.

[pinkmoon]

I don't really believe Cross was responsible for the murders. Why kill on the way to work? Where did he put the organs, in his pocket? I don't think it makes sense really. The murders happened around bank holidays, weekends, this would, to me, make anyone think the killer wasn't working at these times.

Just because the murders were committed along his route to work, doesn't mean Cross did it.

The discovery of Nichols by Cross, doesn't mean he did it. How could he hide his reaction to having just murdered her? How could he hide the fact that he was out of breath? How would he be able to hide the adrenaline rush he most surely would have exhibited?

Also we know that there is alot of inaccurate time keeping in this case as a whole.

It's just a theory that has blown up into something big nothing wrong with theories but people need to keep their feet on the ground and like I said for this too work we have to accept that one morning Mr cross woke up no longer a physcopath in other words he got better .

[Natasha]

I don't really believe Cross was responsible for the murders. Why kill on the way to work? Where did he put the organs, in his pocket? I don't think it makes sense really. The murders happened around bank holidays, weekends, this would, to me, make anyone think the killer wasn't working at these times.

Just because the murders were committed along his route to work, doesn't mean Cross did it.

The discovery of Nichols by Cross, doesn't mean he did it. How could he hide his reaction to having just murdered her? How could he hide the fact that he was out of breath? How would he be able to hide the adrenaline rush he most surely would have exhibited?

Also we know that there is alot of inaccurate time keeping in this case as a whole.