Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Columbo]

False. One must not be good, true, and honest in all things to NOT be Jack the Ripper. One must simply...well.....NOT be Jack the Ripper. And, just as I contend that we will never know JtR's identity, we'll also never "rule out" anyone who happened to live and move through the East End in the autumn of 1888. I can't "rule out" Lechmere was Jack the Ripper anymore than I can "rule out" Sickert, or William Gull. I can only say what's likely and unlikely.

Hey Patrick,

So you don't think we can rule out Gull, Eddie, Tumblety, Sickert, and a bunch more that were shown by the investigations done by modern day researchers that they weren't involved at all?

Columbo

[CertainSum1]

You're certainly within your rights to say that the "Lechmere was the Ripper" theory is as bad as any other theory with a named suspect. But what we are talking about is tone as well as content: right now, Lechmere supporters on Casebook are treated rudely in ways that proponents of other, equally flawed suspects are not.

I have to agree. It seems the condescension is exactly relative to how strongly he/she believes in the Lechmere theory.

[CertainSum1]

Lechmere couldn't have known that Paul wouldn't see blood. He reacted the way one would with a "fight or flight" response. Assuming he's the killer, if he hadn't stayed with the body, feigning discovery, he would have to assume that Paul would have seen the bloody mess and taken off after him, (as he'd have to run to get away) yelled murder, or otherwise have made his safe escape unlikely. His actions make perfect sense if he was the killer deciding instantaneously that he had to fight rather than take flight.

[GUT]

Lechmere couldn't have known that Paul wouldn't see blood. He reacted the way one would with a "fight or flight" response. Assuming he's the killer, if he hadn't stayed with the body, feigning discovery, he would have to assume that Paul would have seen the bloody mess and taken off after him, (as he'd have to run to get away) yelled murder, or otherwise have made his safe escape unlikely. His actions make perfect sense if he was the killer deciding instantaneously that he had to fight rather than take flight.

Why then, didn't he fight.

[CertainSum1]

Why then, didn't he fight.

I was speaking figuratively, meaning he had to stand his ground and see it through as opposed to running away.

[Fisherman]

Columbo: Thanks Fisherman, I was always baffled by that comment. It's good to know there was an actual reference to associate with it.

There are a few examples where the papers say that Lechmere claimed to have stepped back. So it´s not only in the Daily News.

Another question came to mind as I was reading through the thread. How come Cross and Paul didn't know each other? Did they never meet walking the same route to work?

Lechmere had only moved to Doveton Street in mid June. Before that, he lived in James Street (todays Burslem Street) in St Georges. Plus we know that Lechmere claimed to have been late on the morning in question - he reasonably normally started out at 3.20, in order to reach Pickfords in Broad Street at 4 AM. It was a 40 minute walk. Both 3.20 and 3.30 are mentioned in the inquest material, and my guess is that Lechmere said that he normally started out at 3.20, but on the murder morning he was late, and started out 3.30. In neither case should he have been in Bucks Row at 3.45, since it took six or seven minutes to do the trek from 22 Doveton Street to the Browns Stable yard gate.
Anyway, if he started out at 3.20 normally, that would take him through Bucks Row around 3.27. When he met Paul on the murder morning, it was 3.45, 18 minutes later. I think that Pauls normal schedule took him through Bucks Row earlier than Lechmere walked through it, so there was no reason for them to meet based on the timings.

Was Buck's Row Paul's usual route to work? I would've expected them to at least pass one another once or twice if this was their usual route.

It would have been both Pauls and Lechmeres normal route.

So a hypothetical question comes to mind. If Bucks row was Paul's usual route but not Cross's that would seem even more strange that he was found with the body.

Just food for thought.

Lechmere had no alternative but to use Bucks Row, it was the only thoroughfare that worked practically for him if he did not want to loose time. To the north, the railway cut off his opportunities to pass through, and to the south, he need to drop down to Whitechapel Road, which was a longer trek.
On that score, it can be said that there is every chance that Lechmere actually did precisely this, if he was the killer, looking for prey. In such a case, Whitechapel Road would supply many prostitutes. He could pick one, and then delve into the quiet backstreets north of Whitechapel Road to "do the business". Only his business would differ from what the chosen lady had in mind.
Incidentally, if the procedure took him an extra eight minutes, involving the killing, then he would be in Bucks Row with the freshly killed victim at around 3.45 if he started out from home at 3.30...

[drstrange169]

Just a quick fact check.

... we know that Lechmere claimed to have been late on the morning in question

Do we?

Could you cite the source from Xmere, where he specifically states he was late?

... my guess is that Lechmere said that he normally started out at 3.20, but on the murder morning he was late, and started out 3.30.

Ah, thank you, so we don't know that he was late after all, twas just a guess.

When he met Paul on the murder morning, it was 3.45 ...

Not according to three policemen, one of whom the Xmere theory needs to be a paragon of truthfulness and a man who doesn't easily make mistakes. Now there's a conundrum.

Aren't you proud? After 20 years I've finally worked out how to use the quote button!

[GUT]

I was speaking figuratively, meaning he had to stand his ground and see it through as opposed to running away.

Why then, didn't he fight.

But why didn't he whip his knife out and give Paul what he'd just given Polly.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:

Could you cite the source from Xmere, where he specifically states he was late?

Certainly. From the Daily Telegraph, September 4 1888:

The Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was?

Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself.

Ah, thank you, so we don't know that he was late after all, twas just a guess.

No. Here it is again: I was behind time myself.

Not according to three policemen, one of whom the Xmere theory needs to be a paragon of truthfulness and a man who doesn't easily make mistakes. Now there's a conundrum.

... but according to the only man who gave an exact time. And according to the final police report, where 3.40 had been adjusted to 3.45, signed Donald Swanson. Presumably, he had weighed in all factors at that stage. Which was why the time was altered.

As for Mizen, he need not have been a paragon of truthfulness or anything like that. He need only to have been an average serving PC, doing what he was hired to do. Let´s not get overenthusiastic about the demands it would require for him to speak the simple truth. And let´s not forget that the one who we know did not give his registered name to the police was Lechmere. Plus we know that regardless of he left 3.20 or 3.30, he should have been way past Bucks Row at 3.45. Equally, he should have been past it at 3.40 too.

He seems the by far more likely man to have been economic with the truth.

[harry]

Colombo,
Did I understand you that you would be eager to debate with anyone.I trust then you will answer my last post to you.It was neither offensive nor difficult.

[Patrick S]

Hey Patrick,

So you don't think we can rule out Gull, Eddie, Tumblety, Sickert, and a bunch more that were shown by the investigations done by modern day researchers that they weren't involved at all?

Columbo

I consider the term "rule out" to mean that it's impossible for that person to have committed the crimes. For instance, if we have documentary evidence that "Person X" was in Australia from May 1888 through March, 1889 then I would be inclined to "rule them out" based on that evidence. However UNLIKELY a "suspect" may be, it's very hard to say definitively that he/she committed one or all of the crimes. Just I do not think it's possible - short of something new coming to light - to rule Cross/Lechmere out, either. I don't think he's a very likely killer by any stretch of the imagination. But, I cannot "rule him out".

Let me say this: These crimes were not committed last week. Thus, our ability to "rule someone out" is, shall we say, somewhat impeded by time, lack of information, lost records, poor census data, etc. So, when we say "so and so cannot be RULED OUT", well, that's not saying much, and you have a very big pot of "suspects" indeed, no matter how unlikely they are to have been a killer.

Lastly, I'm unfamiliar with "investigations done by modern day researchers" that show that anyone was "not involved at all". Obviously, I don't think anyone on your list was Jack the Ripper. Alas, the problems I stated above with respect to "ruling someone out" exist and apply to everyone. Gull was old an infirm. He makes an unlikely Ripper. Yet, I'm not aware of any evidence that "rules him out". Much of what Cornwell has written about Sickert is bunk. Does that "rule him out"? No. Tumblety has been "RULED OUT"? By modern researchers? Not involved at all, huh? Well, I've never thought of him at Jack the Ripper. But, this HAS to be news to many on these boards! Well, done, Columbo! I'll make sure we ask to have his suspect page removed!

[Patrick S]

I was speaking figuratively, meaning he had to stand his ground and see it through as opposed to running away.

Well. That's all fine and good. The only problem is that the "fight" part of "fight or flight" is NOT, in fact, FIGURATIVE at all. It's literal, and what Cross/Lechmere did was not, by any measure, a "fight".

[John G]

Well. That's all fine and good. The only problem is that the "fight" part of "fight or flight" is NOT, in fact, FIGURATIVE at all. It's literal, and what Cross/Lechmere did was not, by any measure, a "fight".

Hi Patrick,

In this context, is it possible he simply panicked and, with just a short time in which to make a fateful decision, he effectively froze?

[Columbo]

I consider the term "rule out" to mean that it's impossible for that person to have committed the crimes. For instance, if we have documentary evidence that "Person X" was in Australia from May 1888 through March, 1889 then I would be inclined to "rule them out" based on that evidence. However UNLIKELY a "suspect" may be, it's very hard to say definitively that he/she committed one or all of the crimes. Just I do not think it's possible - short of something new coming to light - to rule Cross/Lechmere out, either. I don't think he's a very likely killer by any stretch of the imagination. But, I cannot "rule him out".

Let me say this: These crimes were not committed last week. Thus, our ability to "rule someone out" is, shall we say, somewhat impeded by time, lack of information, lost records, poor census data, etc. So, when we say "so and so cannot be RULED OUT", well, that's not saying much, and you have a very big pot of "suspects" indeed, no matter how unlikely they are to have been a killer.

Lastly, I'm unfamiliar with "investigations done by modern day researchers" that show that anyone was "not involved at all". Obviously, I don't think anyone on your list was Jack the Ripper. Alas, the problems I stated above with respect to "ruling someone out" exist and apply to everyone. Gull was old an infirm. He makes an unlikely Ripper. Yet, I'm not aware of any evidence that "rules him out". Much of what Cornwell has written about Sickert is bunk. Does that "rule him out"? No. Tumblety has been "RULED OUT"? By modern researchers? Not involved at all, huh? Well, I've never thought of him at Jack the Ripper. But, this HAS to be news to many on these boards! Well, done, Columbo! I'll make sure we ask to have his suspect page removed!

Hi Patrick,

Ok.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Colombo,
Cross was uttering a lie with the intention to deceive.
You believe that? To deceive who about what?
Fact is he presented three individual pieces of information that could Identify him.(1) His home address. (2)His place of employment.(3) By coming forward his physical and facial details.Is that the actions of a man attempting to deceive.It is possibly more than is required even in these days.
Ok,here is another.To have been the killer,Cross had to be in the company of Nichols while she was still alive.Any evidence of that?
And another.Can it be established that the name of Cross was never used,socially,at work,or among family and friends.

Regards.

Hi Harry,

Sorry to be late with this response. I take it this is the post you wanted me to debate with you on.

1. Most people lie with the intention to deceive. That's why they lie. So yes if he lied I believe he did it to deceive.

2. If there were evidence of him being with her when she was alive, then we wouldn't even have this website and the JTR murders would've stopped right there. Of course there's no evidence of that. There is is plenty of evidence he was with her when she was dead though.

3. I think this was answered by others but there is no way to establish when and where Lechmere was using Cross. But we do know of one occasion he did and that occasion involved a murder.

Columbo