Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Fisherman]

Hey, that's fine with me.

The fear of finding sources in there which throws doubt on your precious theories, combined with the fact the material is a little too taxing for you to comprehend, well I can see why you are fearful of expanding your knowledge.

There's only 6 left at Amazon anyway, so the chances of you getting it is disappearing rapidly.

Monty


PS oop, make that 5 left now.

That was NOT me, Monty!

[harry]

Fisherman,
So nothing could be proved.Your admission.Pleased you see it that way.
So now spell out your circumstantial evidence,and remember,in court even circumstantial evidence needs a measure of proof.
You can't use the,"Your honor,I believe Cross lied about the time he left home",Ï believe he would have had blood on his person,but it was too dark to tell"etc.
Your theory,like all those that have gone before,relies not on proven evidence,circumstantial or otherwise,but on IF this or that circumstance e xisted,then this or that consequence would ensue.

[Trevor Marriott]

To begin with, QC James Scobie said that there is a prima faciae case against Lechmere, suggesting that he was the killer.
In a court, the defence could, should and would challenge that. But the core of the matter is that we have a case on hand that is discussed by a QC as warranting a trial.

The case would never get to trial simply because it would never get pass the committal stage. On what is known there is no case to answer confirmed by Scobie to me during our conversation !

When considering a charge the prosecution have to be satisfied that they have a reasonable chance of securing a conviction ! with your case you have two hopes, Bob Hope and No hope !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Error message duplicated

[Harry D]

"Getting things right" is always essential. You originally gave a very sinister touch to what Hutch did, "staking out" the house, whereas you confidently said that Lechmere merely happened to find Nichols.

That is incriminating one and exonerating the other. We should not do such things.

Now you say that Kelly had retired for the night, but we do not know that. Certainly, if Hutch knew Kellyīs occupation, he would not be able to know whether she had retired for the night or not. Nota bene that he said that he waited to see if THEY would come out.

And yes, Kelly was found dead some ten hours after Hutch was there. But it equally applies that Nichols was found dead by a PC two or three minutes after Lechmere left her!

All we can di is to look at the factualitites, and when we do, we find that Lechmere is by far the better candidate. It is only when we compete for the most sinister hunch that Hutch may have a place to fill.

I'm at an advantage here, Fish, because I don't have a horse in this race. I can happily accept that Hutch & Lechmere are BOTH weak suspects but Hutchinson has the edge in terms of suspicious behaviour.

Hutchinson waited until AFTER the inquest to come forward (Lechmere didn't). Possibly because he discovered that he had been seen that night (by Lewis?) and needed to exonerate himself. He came up with an implausible suspect description and sent the police on a wild goose chase. Now, whether Hutchinson was trying to deflect attention away from himself or trying to make a nice little earner, either way it casts a suspicious light on his character.

Lechmere was on his way to work, as normal. Nothing strange there. Hutchinson was lurking at the scene of the crime for no good reason, waiting for the victim to finish with her client. Lechmere grabbed the attention of the first passer-by and the two of them went for a copper, again nothing out of the ordinary. Then we come to the thorny issue of Lechmere giving his stepdad's surname, but as we have no evidence that he wasn't known as 'Charles Cross' in some capacity, and the fact that he made no other attempt to conceal his identity, I don't see this as the action of a guilty man with something to hide.

Lechmere was a gainfully employed family man who died at a ripe old age. Hutchinson's life post-Ripper is a mystery. No doubt you'll point out that Dennis Rader was a also family man, but bear in mind that though he went through dormant phases he inevitably gave into his inner-demons and was caught. You've yet to sufficiently show any evidence that links Lechmere to subsequent murders to prove that he continued killing after the Ripper murders.

You'll also notice that I skipped over your point about Lechmere using a knife at work. That's because it's an irrelevance. Whoever the Ripper was, whatever his vocation (if he even had a job), he obviously went out that night armed with a knife. If Hutchinson was the Ripper, he would've had no problem getting hold of one. Furthermore, isn't it more likely that in his profession Lechmere would've had something more akin to a penknife for cutting rope, than the thin, long bladed weapon that was used to dispatch Nichols & co.?

[Ben]

“Iīll bite, Harry”

Well you shouldn’t have bitten, Fisherman, because now I’m coming over here.

Hutchinson is the witness-turned-suspect who inspired other theorists to turn witnesses into suspects, thus accounting for a whole host of Johnny-come-latelys, such as Mann, Richardson, and Crossmere. The trouble with these later proposals is that they’re all essentially doing a bad Hutchinson, because the prototype for this sort of suspect, i.e. Hutchinson himself, is the only one of them whose behaviour can be viewed as legitimately suspicious from a criminological perspective.

As Harry points out, there is nothing suspicious about heading to work in the course of a daily routine and discovering a body – which somebody had to do at some point; whereas there is arguably something very suspicious about loitering outside a soon-to-be-murdered victim’s home with no good reason for being there.

You cite the fact - as though it counted for anything – that Crossmere had occasion to pass through the murder region on the way to work, but Hutchinson lived right in the centre of that murder region. I don’t know of any serial killer who has claimed victims and disposed of them on his way to work, whereas a great many operate from a base that is more or less centrally situated in relation to their crimes. In geographical-profiling terms, Hutchinson would be a “marauder” and Cross a “commuter”, and studies carried out by David Canter and others determined that the latter are "very rare".

The whole notion of needing an independent other “reason” to be out on the streets is nonsense. All other prostitute murderers were out and about for one reason and one reason only – they were looking for victims. They left their homes to find them, and returned home when the deed was completed. In Hutchinson’s case, that would have been a very simple, expedient considering that George Yard (for instance) was a stone’s throw away from his home. The same applies to the rather meaningless argument that Crossmere had a “reason” to be carrying a knife, since it misses the obvious point that Jack the Ripper only needed one reason to have a knife secreted about his person, and that was kill and mutilate prostitutes with it.

The serial killers we know about who injected themselves into their own investigations generally did so in the immediate wake of their last known crime, as opposed very early on their serial killer (as Nichols would almost certainly have been in the ripper's case), and then going on to claim another victim in the same area a few days later.

The strong indications are that Hutchinson was discredited because he was suspected of lying, whereas Cross was treated as an honest witness throughout. Cross attended the inquest, whereas Hutchinson didn't. Hutchinson waited three days and only came forward after the inquest finished, whereas Cross didn't. Cross's evidence is straightforward and not overladen with implausible detail, whereas Hutchinson...Well, you get the picture, or ought to.

Dan Norder wrote a very persuasive suspect comparison between Hutchinson and Crossmere as far back as 2008, which bears repeating:

"The argument for Cross as a suspect is similar to Hutchinson, in that they both can be placed at a crime scene, but for Cross most of the reasons people have suspected Hutchinson are missing:

1) Cross' testimony was never doubted and/or later ignored by police. (While we don't know that they disagreed with his testimony as compare to deciding it was not relevant or helpful, certainly the possibility that they found errors in it is a key reason people have for suspecting Hutchison.)

2) Cross' statement sounds very matter of fact and plausible, while Hutchinson's features some details that don't ring true.

3) Cross had somewhere to go within the next few minutes (in this murder and theoretically in others if he were involved) and would be far less likely to cover up any blood, etc.

4) Hutchinson by his own account was hanging around spying on someone who became a Ripper victim.

5) Hutchinson only came forward after another witness testified to seeing a mysterious man hanging around the scene of the crime.

6) Hutchinson's account featured a lot of details that could have easily come from previous newspaper reports, while Cross of course did not.

7) Cross was introduced to the police early in the investigation and the murders continued without any sort of interruption afterward.

Everything about Cross as a suspect applies at least equally, and usually more so, to Hutchinson. Hutchinson I think is plausible as a suspect, although of course there are plenty of scenarios that would explain his behavior without making him the killer (he may have been Kelly's pimp, wanting to stay in her room later, hoping to rob the man he says he saw with her, trying for a reward and inventing up details toward that end, and so forth). Cross as the Ripper is a lot more unrealistic, in my opinion."

And Fisherman, if you respond with a long point-by-point rebuttal, I'll be responding with an even longer point-by-point counter-rebuttal; just to let you know in advance how I'm going to rolling with this one.

[FrankO]

I have often postulated that Jack the Ripper would most likely have been a psychopath. Thatīs what I see at the murder sites. The FBI, I may add, saw the same thing - psychopathology.
It therefore follows that if Lechmere was the killer, then HE was that psychopath.

What, specifically, do you see at the murder sites/in the murders that points to a psychopath, Fish?

That the FBI saw a high degree of psychopathology exhibited at the scenes, doesn’t mean they thought he was a psychopath. In fact, John Douglas doesn’t mention the word ‘psychopath’ in his analysis.

The only psychopathic traits I see when looking at what we know about the murders/murder scenes is that the Ripper was callous and felt no remorse or guilt whatsoever. His risk-taking, which may have been a result of a grandiose sense of self-worth, may have been another, but that's it. I'm not saying that, therefore, he couldn't have been a psychopath (he probably posessed some psychopathic traits), I'm just curious.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

What, specifically, do you see at the murder sites/in the murders that points to a psychopath, Fish?

That the FBI saw a high degree of psychopathology exhibited at the scenes, doesn’t mean they thought he was a psychopath. In fact, John Douglas doesn’t mention the word ‘psychopath’ in his analysis.

The only psychopathic traits I see when looking at what we know about the murders/murder scenes is that the Ripper was callous and felt no remorse or guilt whatsoever. His risk-taking, which may have been a result of a grandiose sense of self-worth, may have been another, but that's it. I'm not saying that, therefore, he couldn't have been a psychopath (he probably posessed some psychopathic traits), I'm just curious.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank!

You pretty much nail it in your own post! This man would in all probabiliy have feigned being a punter, he would have been able to make his victims feel at ease, he would have been an accomplished liar and he would have harboured a complete disrespect for other peoples lives. As you say, it seems he was self-secure enough to feel sure that he would be able to pull off killing in the open streets. And since he carried on, getting worse all the time, he would have felt justified in what he did, feeling no remorse. He was a planner, not a nutter, being able to get in and out unnoticed and leaving no clues behind. He was therefore not killing under the influence of a psychosis. In Mitre Square, he may have crouched in the darkness with a pc looking into the square, but did not panick and run. He finished what he came for, and cut himself a piece of his victims apron before he left, showing extreme coolness and leaving without running. The double event seems to point to a man who felt robbed of his right to eviscerate his victim, and he subsequently killed in Mitre Square and doubled back towards an area where he must have known that the police would be around in numbers. Determination, a sense of having the right to kill, coolness and daring.

Some of this is less factual, some more. But that is the overall picture.

[Fisherman]

Well you shouldn’t have bitten, Fisherman, because now I’m coming over here.

Hutchinson is the witness-turned-suspect who inspired other theorists to turn witnesses into suspects, thus accounting for a whole host of Johnny-come-latelys, such as Mann, Richardson, and Crossmere. The trouble with these later proposals is that they’re all essentially doing a bad Hutchinson, because the prototype for this sort of suspect, i.e. Hutchinson himself, is the only one of them whose behaviour can be viewed as legitimately suspicious from a criminological perspective.

As Harry points out, there is nothing suspicious about heading to work in the course of a daily routine and discovering a body – which somebody had to do at some point; whereas there is arguably something very suspicious about loitering outside a soon-to-be-murdered victim’s home with no good reason for being there.

You cite the fact - as though it counted for anything – that Crossmere had occasion to pass through the murder region on the way to work, but Hutchinson lived right in the centre of that murder region. I don’t know of any serial killer who has claimed victims and disposed of them on his way to work, whereas a great many operate from a base that is more or less centrally situated in relation to their crimes. In geographical-profiling terms, Hutchinson would be a “marauder” and Cross a “commuter”, and studies carried out by David Canter and others determined that the latter are "very rare".

The whole notion of needing an independent other “reason” to be out on the streets is nonsense. All other prostitute murderers were out and about for one reason and one reason only – they were looking for victims. They left their homes to find them, and returned home when the deed was completed. In Hutchinson’s case, that would have been a very simple, expedient considering that George Yard (for instance) was a stone’s throw away from his home. The same applies to the rather meaningless argument that Crossmere had a “reason” to be carrying a knife, since it misses the obvious point that Jack the Ripper only needed one reason to have a knife secreted about his person, and that was kill and mutilate prostitutes with it.

The serial killers we know about who injected themselves into their own investigations generally did so in the immediate wake of their last known crime, as opposed very early on their serial killer (as Nichols would almost certainly have been in the ripper's case), and then going on to claim another victim in the same area a few days later.

The strong indications are that Hutchinson was discredited because he was suspected of lying, whereas Cross was treated as an honest witness throughout. Cross attended the inquest, whereas Hutchinson didn't. Hutchinson waited three days and only came forward after the inquest finished, whereas Cross didn't. Cross's evidence is straightforward and not overladen with implausible detail, whereas Hutchinson...Well, you get the picture, or ought to.

Dan Norder wrote a very persuasive suspect comparison between Hutchinson and Crossmere as far back as 2008, which bears repeating:

"The argument for Cross as a suspect is similar to Hutchinson, in that they both can be placed at a crime scene, but for Cross most of the reasons people have suspected Hutchinson are missing:

1) Cross' testimony was never doubted and/or later ignored by police. (While we don't know that they disagreed with his testimony as compare to deciding it was not relevant or helpful, certainly the possibility that they found errors in it is a key reason people have for suspecting Hutchison.)

2) Cross' statement sounds very matter of fact and plausible, while Hutchinson's features some details that don't ring true.

3) Cross had somewhere to go within the next few minutes (in this murder and theoretically in others if he were involved) and would be far less likely to cover up any blood, etc.

4) Hutchinson by his own account was hanging around spying on someone who became a Ripper victim.

5) Hutchinson only came forward after another witness testified to seeing a mysterious man hanging around the scene of the crime.

6) Hutchinson's account featured a lot of details that could have easily come from previous newspaper reports, while Cross of course did not.

7) Cross was introduced to the police early in the investigation and the murders continued without any sort of interruption afterward.

Everything about Cross as a suspect applies at least equally, and usually more so, to Hutchinson. Hutchinson I think is plausible as a suspect, although of course there are plenty of scenarios that would explain his behavior without making him the killer (he may have been Kelly's pimp, wanting to stay in her room later, hoping to rob the man he says he saw with her, trying for a reward and inventing up details toward that end, and so forth). Cross as the Ripper is a lot more unrealistic, in my opinion."

And Fisherman, if you respond with a long point-by-point rebuttal, I'll be responding with an even longer point-by-point counter-rebuttal; just to let you know in advance how I'm going to rolling with this one.

Donīt worry, Ben - I will just point to my list of ten points and be done with it. You may - whenever you wish - present a list of ten points where Hutch has the upper hand on Lechmere.

I suspect it will be headed by how much more devious Hutch is to your mind.

[Pcdunn]

How do you explain that Neil was allowed to state that he found the body first himself, denying any knowledge of the carmen?

My explanation would be that Neil had testified earlier on Friday, but Lechmere did not make contact with the police until later on Friday, perhaps while or after the inquest was going on. Abberline asked for an extension in order to let the teamster testify and try to clarify things.

[FrankO]

This man would in all probabiliy have feigned being a punter, he would have been able to make his victims feel at ease,...

Hi again Fish,

The women would quite likely have taken the active role and were desperate. All he had to do was to comply, show the money and go with them. For this, he needn’t have been a psychopath. No glibness, charm or manipulation was needed.

he would have been an accomplished liar...

I’m sure he was good at keeping his true self hidden from the people around him, yes, but this wouldn’t make him a psychopath either. I believe Robert Clive Napper was also quite good at this, but he’s not diagnosed a psychopath.

As you say, it seems he was self-secure enough to feel sure that he would be able to pull off killing in the open streets.

Either that, or his desire to live out his fantasies along with the rage he undoubtedly felt towards women was just too big to ignore any longer.

He was a planner, not a nutter, being able to get in and out unnoticed and leaving no clues behind.

I agree he was no nutter. Whether he was a planner or not, I don’t know. The way I see it, not too much planning went into his murders. Yes, he killed during the nightly hours of lull, when his potential victims would be the most desperate and most people would be trying to get some sleep. And, yes, he was cautious enough to get away in time and unnoticed on each occasion, so we can assume he knew right from wrong and was able to control himself and act inconspicuously. But what clues, other than being seen and/or noticed or perhaps a fingerprint, could he have left that would have led to his arrest back in those days?

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

My explanation would be that Neil had testified earlier on Friday, but Lechmere did not make contact with the police until later on Friday, perhaps while or after the inquest was going on. Abberline asked for an extension in order to let the teamster testify and try to clarify things.

But Neil and the police gave a press conference on the evening of the 2:nd, where they stuck with Neil being the finder. Why would they do that if Lechmere had spoken to them 24 hours before..?

[Fisherman]

Hi again Fish,

The women would quite likely have taken the active role and were desperate. All he had to do was to comply, show the money and go with them. For this, he needn’t have been a psychopath. No glibness, charm or manipulation was needed.

I’m sure he was good at keeping his true self hidden from the people around him, yes, but this wouldn’t make him a psychopath either. I believe Robert Clive Napper was also quite good at this, but he’s not diagnosed a psychopath.

Either that, or his desire to live out his fantasies along with the rage he undoubtedly felt towards women was just too big to ignore any longer.

I agree he was no nutter. Whether he was a planner or not, I don’t know. The way I see it, not too much planning went into his murders. Yes, he killed during the nightly hours of lull, when his potential victims would be the most desperate and most people would be trying to get some sleep. And, yes, he was cautious enough to get away in time and unnoticed on each occasion, so we can assume he knew right from wrong and was able to control himself and act inconspicuously. But what clues, other than being seen and/or noticed or perhaps a fingerprint, could he have left that would have led to his arrest back in those days?

All the best,
Frank

Well, Frank, you never asked me to provide proof that he was a psychopath - you asked me what it was that made me think that he was. And that was what I replied to.

We already knew, you and me, that it was not something that could be proven. If it could, it would have been a long since established fact.

What clue could he leave that would have led to his arrest? Any item that he dropped or accidentally left behind, including of course the weapon, if they were specific enough to be tied to himself.

[FrankO]

Well, Frank, you never asked me to provide proof that he was a psychopath - you asked me what it was that made me think that he was. And that was what I replied to.

We already knew, you and me, that it was not something that could be proven. If it could, it would have been a long since established fact.

What clue could he leave that would have led to his arrest? Any item that he dropped or accidentally left behind, including of course the weapon, if they were specific enough to be tied to himself.

I can't argue with any of that, Fish!

[Hercule Poirot]

To begin with, QC James Scobie said that there is a prima faciae case against Lechmere, suggesting that he was the killer.
In a court, the defence could, should and would challenge that. But the core of the matter is that we have a case on hand that is discussed by a QC as warranting a trial.

Is my reasoning circular? No, it is not. I am convinced that Jack the Ripper was a psychopath. The FBI agrees that the murder sites witnessed about a psychopath...

...When a renowned Ripper author professes to that kind of knowledge, you know that there is a lot more to dig for!! And that gives me good hope that more material will point POTENTIALLY to guilt on Lechmeres behalf, once it is analyzed.

These are examples of things that SHOULD have been brought up 127 years ago - by the police. In other cases, there are much smaller matters that can be found, pointing in the carmans direction, things that have been very effectively hidden.

Is that circular, by the way? To say that I think more will surface, and then if I find something that is dubious about then carman, will that be circular too?

I am sure that you have much experience, as you say, from many branches that can have a bearing on the case. Myself, I have fourteen years as a professional newspaper researcher and nigh on thirty years as a journalist behind me. And I donīt see how any of us is the better man for it.

But I DO see that those who say that they have a fancy background like you and me, and go on to say that this would make us the better men to solve the case, these people are engaing in circular reasoning!

PS. Je parle un peu francaise, mais seulement un petit peu!

Hi Fisherman,

I need to begin by saying that I didn't intend to use elements of my background as arguments of authority but only to say that my interest in the JTR case covered various fields where the research method/approach one uses makes the difference between a scenario and a valid theory.

When I mentionned that you were doing some circular reasonning with the idea of Lechmere being a psychopath, it was based on the way you expressed your opinion. At one point in some of your numerous responses (Don't ask me to trace them, it would take years. LOL), you went through Lechmere's life and picked up elements which would confirm your opinion (absence of a father role model, 'lying', etc.). That was circular reasoning and one must be careful for up to a certain degree, everyone has certain psychopath attributs. Now when you phrased it this way: "I have often postulated that Jack the Ripper would most likely have been a psychopath. Thatīs what I see at the murder sites. The FBI, I may add, saw the same thing - psychopathology. It therefore follows that if Lechmere was the killer, then HE was that psychopath", it's not circular reasonning. The end results are the same, but only the latter method is valid.

What I meant was the approach/method you use makes the difference. Let me give you an example of it's impact. In 1900, Planck made the assumption that energy was made of individual units, or quanta and built an equation explaining it. A few years later, Albert Einstein theorized that not just the block of energy, but the radiation itself was quantized in the same manner and corrected Planck's equation. What was originally known as the Planck quanta theory became the Planck-Einstein theory and now strickly as one of Einstein's theories. So you must be careful.

One last advice. You often reformulate your points differently hoping others will better understand them which may generate confusion. Try to limit your use of words and maintain a constant in the way you express an idea.

You will obviously admit I'm right because I'm not wrong. LOL

Respectfully yours,

Hercule Poirot

P.S. Maybe you already answered this question but I can't remember what you may have said about it. Did James Scobie base his opinion on certain specific elements or was it a global conclusion?