Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[GUT]

But only Lechmere makes people out here say that the researchers who back him as a suspect are immoral. So Lechmere is a different story from all other suspects.

Well I've never said you are immoral, and if you have taken anything I have said as implying that, I unreservedly withdraw and appologise.

[Fisherman]

The supporters of any named suspect are in a minority here, and most of those theories get the same scrutiny as Cross.

But only Lechmere makes people out here say that the researchers who back him as a suspect are immoral. So Lechmere is a different story from all other suspects.

[GUT]

Fair point, GUT. But he did use an alias at an inquest, which is a bit different.

Did He?

I haven't seen a transcript of the inquest,

Did Hutch

Did Pearly Poll.

Did anyone else?

[Barnaby]

Fair point, GUT. But he did use an alias at an inquest, which is a bit different.

[GUT]

Did Cross give a false name? Was it misleading? One would have to understand his thinking at that time,to answer the first question.The second has been answered.No one was misled.

And no one else in the case gave a false name did they.

To the best of my knowledge they are still arguing over who Hutch was, and he was right on the spot. The only Fleming they have tracked down was 6'7", most of the victims used names that weren't their legal name. Funny really when you think about it.

[CertainSum1]

When I was a teenager I was out doing donuts in a vacant parking lot with my mother's old Ford Pinto. Another friend was with me and when a cop car drove towards us, catching us in the act, she sped off in her car. I was left sitting there in a crappy Pinto and he asked me my name. I told him my true first name...Jennifer...but I decided, spur of the moment, to lie about my last name. It became Smith. Let's just say the cop smirked at the name and used that experience to instill the fear of God and the law into me. Even my friend seemed to be incredulous that I'd lie about my name (as though it was worse than speeding off when approached by an officer.)

After I had time to think about it I realized, in retrospect, how asinine it was to lie. At the time I was saying "Jennifer Smith" I hadn't thought it through enough to know it would go bad. I think Lechmere made the decision to say Cross because he knew he had something to hide, but at the time of his quick decision, thought the police could be fairly easily misled. Why offer his real name (which is what I thought when the police asked me my name.) After all, he was ultimately right.

I think it's a stretch to believe that he had thoughts at the time to consider the whole kerfuffle of being a witness as being potentially upsetting and damaging to his family. There's nothing to indicate that he had much time to consider the ultimate consequences of anything he said. The fact that he gave the name Cross is not easily dismissed for me, especially considering he was simply a supposedly law-abiding good guy named Lechmere.

[Columbo]

Including all those appearing on Casebook's current suspect page.

Absolutely! Jill the Ripper? I think that page may need to be revamped a little.

[Hercule Poirot]

I absolutely agree there is no strong proof against anyone. But if we seriously look at the surviving record and use at least a little common sense we can rule out at least a few dozen suspects...

Including all those appearing on Casebook's current suspect page.

[Columbo]

There's no 'proof' really, against any of the main suspects discussed here. We can say that (a) was found near a body and gave a false name to the police (b) was homicidal and killed his wife (c) wrote an ambiguous suicide note and was suspected by his family of being the Ripper (d) was hanged for wife poisonings and was in Whitechapel at the time of the earlier killings and so on, but actual proof of any of them being Jack is mighty thin on the ground.

I absolutely agree there is no strong proof against anyone. But if we seriously look at the surviving record and use at least a little common sense we can rule out at least a few dozen suspects.

Of course we'll never know.

[harry]

Did Cross give a false name? Was it misleading? One would have to understand his thinking at that time,to answer the first question.The second has been answered.No one was misled.

[GUT]

There's no 'proof' really, against any of the main suspects discussed here. We can say that (a) was found near a body and gave a false name to the police (b) was homicidal and killed his wife (c) wrote an ambiguous suicide note and was suspected by his family of being the Ripper (d) was hanged for wife poisonings and was in Whitechapel at the time of the earlier killings and so on, but actual proof of any of them being Jack is mighty thin on the ground.

I wish I was half as thin as REAL evidence against anyone.

[GUT]

And not many here are Druittists either.

The supporters of any named suspect are in a minority here, and most of those theories get the same scrutiny as Cross.

Go read a Maybrick thread as just one example.

[Rosella]

There's no 'proof' really, against any of the main suspects discussed here. We can say that (a) was found near a body and gave a false name to the police (b) was homicidal and killed his wife (c) wrote an ambiguous suicide note and was suspected by his family of being the Ripper (d) was hanged for wife poisonings and was in Whitechapel at the time of the earlier killings and so on, but actual proof of any of them being Jack is mighty thin on the ground.

[GUT]

It's very interesting that we have a very strong person of interest and so many people are positive he's innocent when there is stronger proof against him then there is against Druitt! Very interesting.

And not many here are Druittists either.

[Columbo]

Happens pretty much every time a person is killed and left on a public street in a busy town to be found by the next person to come along. The finder will have 'been alone' with the body, whether anyone else sees them there or not.

I think this is a strange generalization. Most people who find a dead body don't stand around staring at it. Most would start looking for a cop and even before that they would want to get a closer look.

Too bad no bleeding was reported by Paul when he was with Lechmere. If guilty, Lechmere could easily have claimed to see or hear someone else but chose to tell the truth.

Well, since it was very dark and the bleeding had probably been going on for only a few minutes, I'm sure they wouldn't have seen it unless they slipped in it. But since Cross wouldn't touch her and there were no outward appearing wounds, they only gave Polly a cursory glance and not a full inspection.

Only if you believe the ripper would have been daft enough to risk incriminating himself so needlessly.

If you believe Hutchinson, Astrakhan man incriminated himself for MJK's murder by engaging in a staring contest with Hutchinson. You give JTR too much credit.

Most dead bodies get discovered by someone at some point - and very quickly when left in a public street just as people are on their way to work. Too bad Paul - the only witness with Lechmere during the crucial time - described the body as cold and saw no bleeding. Too bad the first person to see any blood or injuries was PC Neil, making it impossible to know whether the actual murder occurred before, during or after Lechmere's presence.

PC Neil had a lantern so of course he would see wounds. The murder could only occur before or during Lechmere's presence at the scene since we know she wasn't alive when Paul came by. Not sure what you meant by after his presence.

Love,

Caz
X

It's very interesting that we have a very strong person of interest and so many people are positive he's innocent when there is stronger proof against him then there is against Druitt! Very interesting.