Charles Cross?

[Robert]

Fish, you continue to give a loaded account of what happened in Buck's Row. You say that Crossmere was 'found alone with one of the Ripper victims.' 'With'? Loaded word. 'Found alone.' Loaded words. You have even taken to adding that Crossmere was without an alibi. Yes, Crossmere had no alibi, for he was in Buck's Row and, being in Buck's Row, he was not in some other place.

A fair way of putting it would be something like "Paul encountered Crossmere in Buck's Row, near to where the woman was. Paul tried to avoid Crossmere but the latter intercepted him and pointed out the woman. Upon examination of the woman it was clear to Paul that the woman was either dead, or very nearly so."

[Abby Normal]

Fisherman. Your theory ought to be called Crossbore.

We've been over this topic of Lechmere being the killer time and time again and it boils down to you cherry picking bits of wholly circumstantial evidence (which in some cases applies to most men living in 1888 Whitechapel) to back up an argument that has been debunked by many well respected Casebook contributors.

You have no evidence that Lechmere was involved with the killings or inquests or investigations of any of the other Ripper murders. The only link is that he walked to work through Hanbury Street, just like the countless other working men of Whitechapel.

Psychology tells us that this will more than likely bolster your conviction that Lechmere was the killer because of Confirmation Bias. One laps up information that supports their view and disregards numerous, valid and well argued views that go against said person's belief.

What I hope to have achieved here though is a summing up, in no uncertain terms, that the Casebook contributors have been wasting valuable research time into having to constantly refute your assertion that an innocent witness in the Nichols murder was none other than Jack the Ripper.

Many thanks,
Sleuth

Hi Sleuth
In all fairness to Fish and poster Lechmere-the theory has not been debunked.

For example-the theory that Ostrog was JtR HAS been debunked. By Sugden when he showed that ostrog was in jail in France at the time of the ripper murders.

[Fisherman]

Robert: Fish, you continue to give a loaded account of what happened in Buck's Row. You say that Crossmere was 'found alone with one of the Ripper victims.' 'With'? Loaded word. 'Found alone.' Loaded words. You have even taken to adding that Crossmere was without an alibi. Yes, Crossmere had no alibi, for he was in Buck's Row and, being in Buck's Row, he was not in some other place.

Was he or was he not found by Paul in Bucks Row?

Was he or was he not alone as he was found?

Did he or did he not have an alibi for the minutes leading up to Pauls arrival?

Well, there you are then.

A fair way of putting it would be something like "Paul encountered Crossmere in Buck's Row, near to where the woman was. Paul tried to avoid Crossmere but the latter intercepted him and pointed out the woman. Upon examination of the woman it was clear to Paul that the woman was either dead, or very nearly so."

Why would we not make a fuller account and mention that Charles Lechmere was alone as Paul found him? I am all for fairness, but my view on fairness does not comprise leaving potentially important bits and pieces out of an account. My view on fairness takes in all the elements.

Besides, I am not just telling the story one more time. I am actively seeking for the Ripper, and it would seem that Charles Lechmere was Polly Nicholsī probable killer, going by the evidence. At any rate he is the prime suspect (how is THAT for loaded words?).

Others have made it their business to take Lechmeres words as gospel, and have even helped describe him as "gingerly approaching" the shape on the pavement. My contribution is but a drop in the ocean, but it makes sure that both sides of the coin get looked at.
You do not like that. Well, what can I say? Tough luck, Robert.

[Patrick S]

Hi Sleuth
In all fairness to Fish and poster Lechmere-the theory has not been debunked.

For example-the theory that Ostrog was JtR HAS been debunked. By Sugden when he showed that ostrog was in jail in France at the time of the ripper murders.

Good points. I was thinking the same thing. Crossmere is one theory, among many, that is very difficult to debunk. Like many, from this remove, it likely never will be debunked in that he WAS clearly in the area. He WAS near the body. He WAS NOT in jail. He WAS NOT out of the county. He WAS NOT in an asylum. This can be said of a great many "suspects" and people living in and around 1888 London. Thus it makes for interesting conversation and debate.

As for the debate itself......Do I think that Fisherman needs to relax a bit? Well....I think his reply to "Sleuth" shows how some - including myself at times - might become frustrated with his condescending and insulting manner. Thus, let's resolve to ingore those jabs and deal with substance rather than the nonsense. I mean, not everyone is a people person. Not everyone is charming, good with words, and popular with the ladies. Some people are like Christer. And they need love and understanding too. So even when fills his posts with insults and then reacts in disbelief and horror when someone respons in kind, let try and understand where he is coming from...and be grateful we aren't there with him.

[Patrick S]

Good points. I was thinking the same thing. Crossmere is one theory, among many, that is very difficult to debunk. Like many, from this remove, it likely never will be debunked in that he WAS clearly in the area. He WAS near the body. He WAS NOT in jail. He WAS NOT out of the county. He WAS NOT in an asylum. This can be said of a great many "suspects" and people living in and around 1888 London. Thus it makes for interesting conversation and debate.

As for the debate itself......Do I think that Fisherman needs to relax a bit? Well....I think his reply to "Sleuth" shows how some - including myself at times - might become frustrated with his condescending and insulting manner. Thus, let's resolve to ingore those jabs and deal with substance rather than the nonsense. I mean, not everyone is a people person. Not everyone is charming, good with words, and popular with the ladies. Some people are like Christer. And they need love and understanding too. So even when fills his posts with insults and then reacts in disbelief and horror when someone respons in kind, let try and understand where he is coming from...and be grateful we aren't there with him.

By the way, Fisherman. A lot of that was a joke. So, take it as such.

[Robert]

Others have made it their business to take Lechmeres words as gospel, and have even helped describe him as "gingerly approaching" the shape on the pavement. My contribution is but a drop in the ocean, but it makes sure that both sides of the coin get looked at.

I know, Fish. That was why I was careful to say that it was clear to Paul upon examination etc - to allow for the possibility that Crossmere may already have known that she was dead or dying.

Besides, I am not just telling the story one more time. I am actively seeking for the Ripper, and it would seem that Charles Lechmere was Polly Nicholsī probable killer, going by the evidence. At any rate he is the prime suspect (how is THAT for loaded words?).

I think this is the root of the problem - it's fine to build a circumstantial case using elements A, B, C, D, E.... But what you can't do is come to a conclusion and then go back and allow your conclusion to colour your description of the elements.

[Abby Normal]

Good points. I was thinking the same thing. Crossmere is one theory, among many, that is very difficult to debunk. Like many, from this remove, it likely never will be debunked in that he WAS clearly in the area. He WAS near the body. He WAS NOT in jail. He WAS NOT out of the county. He WAS NOT in an asylum. This can be said of a great many "suspects" and people living in and around 1888 London. Thus it makes for interesting conversation and debate.

As for the debate itself......Do I think that Fisherman needs to relax a bit? Well....I think his reply to "Sleuth" shows how some - including myself at times - might become frustrated with his condescending and insulting manner. Thus, let's resolve to ingore those jabs and deal with substance rather than the nonsense. I mean, not everyone is a people person. Not everyone is charming, good with words, and popular with the ladies. Some people are like Christer. And they need love and understanding too. So even when fills his posts with insults and then reacts in disbelief and horror when someone respons in kind, let try and understand where he is coming from...and be grateful we aren't there with him.

Hi Patrick
To be quite honest-Fish usually ups the ante on the personal level when others do it also.(see Sleuths "Crossbore" comment) Im guilty of it too. We're human.

But, Ive found that his logic in his arguments are usually quite sound, even if I disagree sometimes in his analysis (usually regarding hutch, but lets not go there). ; )

I don't have Lechmere high on my list for suspects for many reasons-but he wasn't even on my list before. But hes exactly the type of valid possible suspect that needs to be looked at and researched more-unlike really silly suspects that people have been throwing up there, usually with a book to sell, like Sickert, Van Gogh, maybrick etc,

[Robert]

I enjoy Fish's banter. He's a character.

[Fisherman]

By the way, Fisherman. A lot of that was a joke. So, take it as such.

I donīt think it was. I think you are trying to have it both ways, Patrick.

You see, in addition to being a sad, aggressive loner, I am also paranoid.

[Patrick S]

I donīt think it was. I think you are trying to have it both ways, Patrick.

You see, in addition to being a sad, aggressive loner, I am also paranoid.

Well....whatever works.

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick
To be quite honest-Fish usually ups the ante on the personal level when others do it also.(see Sleuths "Crossbore" comment) Im guilty of it too. We're human.

But, Ive found that his logic in his arguments are usually quite sound, even if I disagree sometimes in his analysis (usually regarding hutch, but lets not go there). ; )

I don't have Lechmere high on my list for suspects for many reasons-but he wasn't even on my list before. But hes exactly the type of valid possible suspect that needs to be looked at and researched more-unlike really silly suspects that people have been throwing up there, usually with a book to sell, like Sickert, Van Gogh, maybrick etc,

I'm in the same place. He's not high on my list. In fact, these days I have no list. Obviously, the celebrity suspects are laughable on their face. But, I find myself leaning toward two ideas: First, JtR's true name cannot found the annals of Ripperology, case files, etc. Second, JtR's identity will never be known.

Of course, neither of these ideas make the subject any less intereting to me.

[Shaggyrand]

I'm in the same place. He's not high on my list. In fact, these days I have no list. Obviously, the celebrity suspects are laughable on their face. But, I find myself leaning toward two ideas: First, JtR's true name cannot found the annals of Ripperology, case files, etc. Second, JtR's identity will never be known.

Of course, neither of these ideas make the subject any less intereting to me.

Complete agreement. I also find the conviction and force in presentation of some folk's theories to be just as interesting and highly entertaining. Not anyone specifically, just generally.

That a "true solution" will ever be found is out of the realm of possibility for me. It's gotten too large and too far removed. There will always be new suspects and new theories.

[Fisherman]

Others have made it their business to take Lechmeres words as gospel, and have even helped describe him as "gingerly approaching" the shape on the pavement. My contribution is but a drop in the ocean, but it makes sure that both sides of the coin get looked at.

I know, Fish. That was why I was careful to say that it was clear to Paul upon examination etc - to allow for the possibility that Crossmere may already have known that she was dead or dying.

Besides, I am not just telling the story one more time. I am actively seeking for the Ripper, and it would seem that Charles Lechmere was Polly Nicholsī probable killer, going by the evidence. At any rate he is the prime suspect (how is THAT for loaded words?).

I think this is the root of the problem - it's fine to build a circumstantial case using elements A, B, C, D, E.... But what you can't do is come to a conclusion and then go back and allow your conclusion to colour your description of the elements.

Robert, what I am doing is to conduct an investigation concerning Charles Lechmere, working from the hypothesis that he could have been Jack the Ripper - or at the very least, the killer of Polly Nichols.

I am not trying to free him, I am trying to have my suspicions confirmed.

It is, more or less, how the police will investigate a murder case.

I have spent my entire life as a journalist and researcher. I know which sources to use, how to weigh an errand etcetera. I have a useful reputation for having a good "feel" for things.

I could of course go about things by being less "aggressive", if you will, in my approach. But that would not promote my chances of getting a result.

Now, knowing you quite well, I suspect that there are a number of terms here that you dislike:
I am trying to have my suspsicions confirmed
I am aggressive
I look for results

It is quite easy to turn this reasoning into a lack of scepticism on my behalf, to think that I am ready to cross ethical lines and/or that I run the risk of misinterpreting matters.

However, I am nowhere near those sorts of things. Contrary to what you may think, I always look at the innocent explanations too, and then I weigh things.

In Lechmereīs case, there are just way too many pointers to guilt to prioritize the innocent explanations over the sinister ones. The much more probable thing is that he was the killer - but it is not a proven thing.

You just donīcollect such a wealth of coincidences without being the guilty party.

Now, as I have been looking for evidence pointing to him, I have come to think that no matter what I find, it will not go to clear him. And that has held true all the way. Itīs not about "wanting" things, it is about logically expecting them.

There are so many small things, like why Mizen would say that "a carman" came by and spoke to him. And all of these small things, sometimes presented in all the papers, other times hidden in one paper only, always offer the sinister perspective.

Take, for example, how we reason that Paul was out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen. There is a report saying about Paul "The other man, who went down Hanbury Street", and suddenly we see that we may be correct. Take how all the papers write that Mizen speaks of coming back with a stretcher and then he adds that the blood was still running. But one paper gives the context, and shows us how it seems that Mizen spoke about the blood in relation to when he told the coroner that Neil was the only person in place as he first arrived.

These pieces are ALWAYS there, and that is not a coincidence.

Some will say that I cherrypick, but I could not care less. I am looking to find evidence that supports my take that Lechmere was the killer, and that evidence is always there!

Last up was the blood evidence. Mizen says that blood was till running from the neck of Nichols as he arrived. That will have been approximately five minutes after Lechmere left Nichols.
I asked a seasoned pathologist how long the blood would have run for - would it be three, five perhaps seven minutes? The answer I got was that the two former suggestions were the much more credible ones.
It also applies that the blood under Nicholsī neck was somewhat congealed - which it would be between minutes three and six after the cut was produced if Nichols followed the ordinary congealing pattern.

This means that Lechmere fits the bill perfectly. And once more, it applies that everything I always goes to further incriminate him and not to exonerate him. And this time we are dealing with hard physical evidence! It is not a lie, a debatable name or something like that. It is blood evidence.

When I find such a thing I WILL go "Aha, further incrimination". But I will ALSO go "But could there have been another killer just the same?". And yes, there could have been.

But so many unlucky coincidences mount up in Lechmeres case, that the call has become an easy one: He was in all probability the slayer of Polly Nichols.

And if he was, it stands to reason that he was also quite probably Jack the Ripper.

Other suspectologists work from their own perceptions about what type of man the killer would have been. Then they find themselves somebody who represents that type, and they try to glue the deeds on him.
Sadly, they cannot produce a single link to the actual murders.

Go hit them over the head, for they are making despicable cases, quite frankly.

But donīt go after me for adding evidence pointing to Lechmere. It is what I look for, and it is what I find. All the time.

[Fisherman]

Well....whatever works.

Exactly, Patrick.

[RivkahChaya]

Robert, what I am doing is to conduct an investigation concerning Charles Lechmere, working from the hypothesis that he could have been Jack the Ripper - or at the very least, the killer of Polly Nichols.

-snip-

But donīt go after me for adding evidence pointing to Lechmere. It is what I look for, and it is what I find. All the time.

Wow. That was almost TL;DR. But, I skimmed it, and got to the last two sentences, and wow. That is pretty much a summary of exactly how "confirmation bias" works.

Up until now, I was trying to stay neutral in this debate-- I don't think Cross did it, but I mean, not trying to side with one party or the other in who was being the most obstinate, but after that big, glow-in-the-dark, red flag, wow.