Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Columbo]

Probably the great majority of the suspects, if not all of them, on Casebook's Suspect page wouldn't have the slightest chance of being charged for one or any other of the canonic 5 murders based on the legal rules existing back then or those of today. That's why, in many cases, it's simply the result of the opinion of amateur Ripperologists. Pure speculation is the primary rule here and elsewhere.

It it that bad? Not really, because Casebook, as well as all other JTR forums, offers an open area of discussuion about JTR. Of course, I would expect one day such forums come out with a series of criterias we could abide with when discussing certain elements. For example, the mere definition of 'suspect', 'person of interest' varies from one to the other with the results we observe each and every day (I should say every 30 minutes). In other words, it's like visiting Disney World. If one can't enjoy the ride everyone else does, well... he should go fly a kite somewhere else. Should there be certain... how should I define it... 'Rules of engagements'...? Perhaps but the this forum would rapidely turn into a gathering of pseudo acadmics and God knows how it would become boring. Some members have a serious difficulty coping with such an evironnement, and we could all name a few which would be any way pointless.

Respectfully yours,
Hercule Poirot

I think your post nails it. The great thing about opinions and debate is that new information or a different view sheds light on a subject. I've learned quite a bit on this thread alone about Whitechapel 1888.

Forums such as this I think should be fun and educational while letting people with similar interests meet and exchange ideas. I know I've enjoyed this thread and met some very interesting people.

I would definitely not want this forum to become too academic. That would just plain suck the wind out of any of the fun we're having here!

Columbo

[Columbo]

Colombo,
In answer to your post above.
(1) If he did lie. You are not then claiming it's proven he did lie,nor are you claiming his actions or claims deceived anyone.Good.
(2) Cross admitted he was there with her body.Like you say if it could be proven he was with her while she was alive we would all embrace his guilt,but it cannot be so proven.Pleased you admit that.
(3) To prove he used Cross only on that occasion is an impossibility.

You see there is no incriminating evidence of guilt whatever, in any action or statement by Cross.

It is a case of if,or could have,or maybe this or that happened.Not to say that is not a good approach,but only if those if's,could haves,or maybe's are verified as fact,are they any use,and they have not been in the case of Cross.

Hi Harry,

I absolutely agree with your post, and I also would say because of the discrepancies brought to light by Fisherman, like timing, dispute on accuracy of who said what etc, Cross should be looked at because there are enough irregularities to warrant it, just like any person of interest in a crime.

At this point we're more or less trying to determine what evidence is useful and what to discard. Unfortunately we've fallen into a lot of supposition on this thread. I hope we can get back to information and facts.

Columbo

[Hercule Poirot]

Hi Patrick,

Well, let me expound on this a little.

You can't rule out Lechmere because he was found with the body. That in itself prevents anyone from completely ruling him out. I agree with you, he seems an unlikely murderer but so do a lot of killers so we should continue to look into him.

Donald Rumbelow is one of the modern researchers that did an excellent job ruling out the "Royal 3" in his wonderful "The Complete Jack the Ripper".
(by the way, Gull being in his 70's, in-firmed and stroke ridden effectively rules him out, Eddie had iron clad, provable alibis for all the murders, that rules him out).

Mr. Rumbelow, in my opinion, also ruled out Walter Sickert in his updated version as well. He did a very detailed investigation. Also recent research shows he was mostly likely in France.

Martin Fido, with the help of other researchers like Paul Begg also effectively ruled out James Maybrick and destroyed the JTR diary.

Phillip Sudgen's research, again my opinion, ruled out Druitt. Not on his own, but he did add to the conclusions.

Joseph Merrick, The Elephant Man, was brought up as a suspect. I think we can pretty much cancel his upcoming page in the suspects section.

Tumblety has been discarded as a suspect by almost all researchers and experts on the subject. Why? because he was in his 50's, 6ft or better and homosexual. No witness described such a man, he was never seen with a victim and most likely he was in jail during one of the murders. This rules him out.

That doesn't mean all suspects can be ruled out. I pick on Feighanbaum but I can't rule him out. I can't rule out James Kelly, George Hutchinson, Joe Barnett and others. The way things are going Mizen might not be ruled out!

Police then and now rule out suspects all the time based on a variety of factors based on the details of the crime they're being suspected of committing. I can say without regret that OJ killed two people. The evidence shows it. If I use your reasoning, Ronald Goldman's father can't be ruled out of that murder if he's even slightly accused of it.

You've brought up a lot of good points in your posts and have given this thread some punch, but the rudeness and anger is doing nothing but make you look a little childish and I say even a little jealous of Fisherman and his ideas. I really hope we can get back to a civilized debate with some witty quips thrown in.

Columbo

Probably the great majority of the suspects, if not all of them, on Casebook's Suspect page wouldn't have the slightest chance of being charged for one or any other of the canonic 5 murders based on the legal rules existing back then or those of today. That's why, in many cases, it's simply the result of the opinion of amateur Ripperologists. Pure speculation is the primary rule here and elsewhere.

It it that bad? Not really, because Casebook, as well as all other JTR forums, offers an open area of discussuion about JTR. Of course, I would expect one day such forums come out with a series of criterias we could abide with when discussing certain elements. For example, the mere definition of 'suspect', 'person of interest' varies from one to the other with the results we observe each and every day (I should say every 30 minutes). In other words, it's like visiting Disney World. If one can't enjoy the ride everyone else does, well... he should go fly a kite somewhere else. Should there be certain... how should I define it... 'Rules of engagements'...? Perhaps but the this forum would rapidely turn into a gathering of pseudo acadmics and God knows how it would become boring. Some members have a serious difficulty coping with such an evironnement, and we could all name a few which would be any way pointless.

Respectfully yours,
Hercule Poirot

[harry]

Colombo,
In answer to your post above.
(1) If he did lie. You are not then claiming it's proven he did lie,nor are you claiming his actions or claims deceived anyone.Good.
(2) Cross admitted he was there with her body.Like you say if it could be proven he was with her while she was alive we would all embrace his guilt,but it cannot be so proven.Pleased you admit that.
(3) To prove he used Cross only on that occasion is an impossibility.

You see there is no incriminating evidence of guilt whatever, in any action or statement by Cross.

It is a case of if,or could have,or maybe this or that happened.Not to say that is not a good approach,but only if those if's,could haves,or maybe's are verified as fact,are they any use,and they have not been in the case of Cross.

[Columbo]

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 is correct, Lechmere didn't fight or flee. He did what someone who has a quick mind and a little cunning would do. Patrick said it himself (albeit in jest).

Lechmere heard Paul, considered his options and quietly pocketed the knife and lowered Nichols skirts to cover the wounds. He then pretended to find the body and disarmed Paul's distrust by acting innocent and saying he found Nichols.

It's possible. Maybe not probable to some, but possible.

Columbo

[Columbo]

It's disappointing to find you making statements like the above Fisherman. Back in 2014 I gave you a long list of timings by Swanson in the Chapman case which did not match the evidence and which made perfectly clear that Swanson's timings in his reports were approximate only. You failed to engage with the point, merely remarking, "I don't think we should drag other cases in". It is both fantastical and implausible to suggest that Swanson actively re-investigated the Nichols murder, and deliberately altered Abberline's timings, when preparing his report for the Home Office.

Hi David,

I have to agree with you on this. I would hope that Swanson would include at least a range and not make his own judgement and set a time he doesn't know is accurate or not.

But even given a 5 minute discrepancy, Fisherman is right in that Cross should not have been there in Buck's Row at 3:45 or 3:40.

Columbo

[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,

Well, let me expound on this a little.

You can't rule out Lechmere because he was found with the body. That in itself prevents anyone from completely ruling him out. I agree with you, he seems an unlikely murderer but so do a lot of killers so we should continue to look into him.

Donald Rumbelow is one of the modern researchers that did an excellent job ruling out the "Royal 3" in his wonderful "The Complete Jack the Ripper".
(by the way, Gull being in his 70's, in-firmed and stroke ridden effectively rules him out, Eddie had iron clad, provable alibis for all the murders, that rules him out).

Mr. Rumbelow, in my opinion, also ruled out Walter Sickert in his updated version as well. He did a very detailed investigation. Also recent research shows he was mostly likely in France.

Martin Fido, with the help of other researchers like Paul Begg also effectively ruled out James Maybrick and destroyed the JTR diary.

Phillip Sudgen's research, again my opinion, ruled out Druitt. Not on his own, but he did add to the conclusions.

Joseph Merrick, The Elephant Man, was brought up as a suspect. I think we can pretty much cancel his upcoming page in the suspects section.

Tumblety has been discarded as a suspect by almost all researchers and experts on the subject. Why? because he was in his 50's, 6ft or better and homosexual. No witness described such a man, he was never seen with a victim and most likely he was in jail during one of the murders. This rules him out.

That doesn't mean all suspects can be ruled out. I pick on Feighanbaum but I can't rule him out. I can't rule out James Kelly, George Hutchinson, Joe Barnett and others. The way things are going Mizen might not be ruled out!

Police then and now rule out suspects all the time based on a variety of factors based on the details of the crime they're being suspected of committing. I can say without regret that OJ killed two people. The evidence shows it. If I use your reasoning, Ronald Goldman's father can't be ruled out of that murder if he's even slightly accused of it.

You've brought up a lot of good points in your posts and have given this thread some punch, but the rudeness and anger is doing nothing but make you look a little childish and I say even a little jealous of Fisherman and his ideas. I really hope we can get back to a civilized debate with some witty quips thrown in.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

It's disappointing to find you making statements like the above Fisherman. Back in 2014 I gave you a long list of timings by Swanson in the Chapman case which did not match the evidence and which made perfectly clear that Swanson's timings in his reports were approximate only. You failed to engage with the point, merely remarking, "I don't think we should drag other cases in". It is both fantastical and implausible to suggest that Swanson actively re-investigated the Nichols murder, and deliberately altered Abberline's timings, when preparing his report for the Home Office.

I disagree. I would think it much more implausible to reason that the alteration was made by accident, or whatever it is you are suggesting. I do not know to what extent the timings were given much attention in 1888 - as many say, there will be more of an uncertainty owing to fewer people owning timepieces, and what clocks and timepieces there were, were less exact than those of today.
I do know, however, that today, the closest attention is payed to the time issue. When prime minister Palme was killed in Sweden back in -86, the time was scrutinized in the greatest of detail. All matters were checked against the time, and a schedule was formed where seconds played important roles.
Basically, I would think that the timings were of great interest to the victorian police too. And I believe that the reason for the discrepancy between the two reports giving a time for when Lechmere and Paul met by the body, was that the police had scrutinized the matter and come to the conclusion that 3.45 was the reasonable time. It fits the overall scenario, not least.
Why you should find it "disappointing", I fail to see - I am stating that it is my belief that this was what happened, not that it is a fact.

As for comparisons with other cases, I remain at the stance you seem to dislike: I donīt judge the Nichols case by the Chapman case time handling. It is interesting per se, but not applicable as such.

[David Orsam]

... 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.

It's disappointing to find you making statements like the above Fisherman. Back in 2014 I gave you a long list of timings by Swanson in the Chapman case which did not match the evidence and which made perfectly clear that Swanson's timings in his reports were approximate only. You failed to engage with the point, merely remarking, "I don't think we should drag other cases in". It is both fantastical and implausible to suggest that Swanson actively re-investigated the Nichols murder, and deliberately altered Abberline's timings, when preparing his report for the Home Office.

[Patrick S]

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?

Anything is possible. However, when I look at this situation, Lechmere's behavior - IF he were the killer - is nonsensical to the extreme. This is why "Fisherman" et al must make him a psychopath. So, once again, let's look at what happened in Buck's Row with the assumption that Lechmere WAS a psychopath and DID kill Nichols.

Having done the deed and begun his mutilations, Lechmere hears footsteps coming down Buck's Row. Recall, it was pitch black. Now, to your point that Lechmere "panicked" and "froze". But, that's not quite what he did. He rather calmly covered Nichols' wounds, walked a few feet into the middle of the road, WAITED for the man (Paul) to come upon him and asked him to "come see this woman". Remember also that Paul stated he tried to walk around Lechmere and continue on his way. But Lechmere TOUCHED Paul's shoulder and called his attention to the body, asking him to come have a look. I would suggest that had Lechmere actually "panicked and froze", there'd have been no interaction at all between these two men.

Okay. So, now we have Paul going with Lechmere, the killer, to the body. They examine her and Paul thinks she's breathing (very slightly). Yet, Lechmere says that he thinks she's dead. Again, he has an opening. Paul thinks she's alive even though Lechmere KNOWS she's dead because he cut her throat. But, Lechmere DISagrees. He thinks she's dead. He doesn't agree that there was movement. Now, Paul wants to move the body. Lechmere says no. Again, it's pitch black in Buck's Row. Lechmere has no way of knowing for certain if he's covered in blood or not (recall he TOUCHED Paul with a hand just used to kill and disembowel Nichols). Moving the body give him a perfect excuse for HAVING that blood on his person. Lechmere is telling Paul he thinks she's dead. Yet, Fisherman wants us to believe that Lechmere will not move the body because her wounds would then be apparent. And that would make Paul suspect Lechmere? Why? Both men suspect she MAY be dead (Lechmere states it outright, Paul thinks he detects faint breathing). Yet the MANNER in which she died suddenly implicates Lechmere? Paul suddenly says, "Her throat's been cut! YOU DID IT! MURDER!!!" Okay. I've gotten sidetracked.

So, then what does he do? He goes in search of a cop, WITH Paul! Now, he had a great advantage. The two men conferred and agreed that they neither wanted to be late for work. So, Lechmere knows Paul is COMING from the direction he came and GOING in the direction he was HEADED. Lechmere was STANDING in one spot when Paul came along. Paul had no idea where he was headed. Why not say, "You go that way. I'm going THIS way to work (the direction Paul had come from)". I'll send a cop if I see one, you do the same." But, no. He goes WITH Paul. At the intersection at the top of Bucks Row, he could have split from Paul again. He didn't. He turned with Paul and found Mizen in Baker's Row and the men told them what they'd found.

Now, bear in mind that Lechmere had no idea how any of this would go. He asks Paul to come see, Paul take out a match, lights it, sees the wounds. Very possibly could have happened. But, I guess Paul was not a smoker. Lechmere didn't know that. So they go find a cop. How could Lechmere have known Mizen would not have said, "Show me." Then he's right back in Buck's Rown with cop, with a lantern. The theory also holds that Lechmere had the murder weapon ON HIM. He did all this, knowing that a simple search turns up a bloody knife?

Again, to many gyrations required for me to buy into this.

[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

[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

[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?

[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".

[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!