Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Barnaby]

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

[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?

[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]

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]

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.

I was not pointing a finger at you - others are responsible for this. And they do NOT apologise!

[Columbo]

I think the research Mr. Holmgrem has done is probably the most realistic on the subject of JTR. Unlike Cornwell's Sickert research or Knight's fantasy about the evil 3.

I hope no one really accused anyone of being immoral because of an opinion on a 128 year old murder mystery! that would be ridiculous on it's face.

[Patrick S]

Seriously? This again?

Columbo, you seem to be somewhat new here, thus you'll need a primer on "Mr. Holmgren's" modus operandi. In another post, on another thread, last week or so. The wounded, put upon, victimized "Mr. Holmgren" posted this:

"It is not without interest that people who cry their hearts out over how they think that the carman is accused with no evidence behind it (!), are willing to sink to levels like these. From me and Edward, you demand evidence - but when it comes to castigating a renowned film company (who puts their rumour on the line everytime they put a production out there) with no substantiation whatsoever, you feel you have the right to do so.

It is shameful, pityful, disgusting and lacking any moral."

In response to this foolishness, I posted this:

"Ah. Morality. Let's not discuss the morals involved in accusing a man, long dead and unable to defend himself of having been a lifelong serial killer. What morals are involved in that? History of violence? No? So what. He's Jack the Ripper. Arrest record? No. So what. He's the Torso Killer. History of mental illness...or even ill humor? No. Ah. He was a cunning psychopath! Raised ten kids you say? Big deal. He was a KILLER! Married for 50 years? AH! He fooled everyone! Even his wife!

Yes. You and Eddie have the market on morality thoroughly cornered, "Fisherman"."

I was once like you, Columbo. I came to "Mr. Holmgren's" theory objectively. Alas, that seems to have been my mistake. I looked into everything that "Mr. Holmgren" presented and found that quite astounding leaps in logic were required to get to the heights to which "Mr. Holmgren" aspired (i.e. "Lechmere the Ripper"). After a firm scolding from "Mr. Holmgren" I did not post for many months. I did my own research into the man (Lechmere) and the cast of characters associated with the Nichols' murder. I don't know exactly where, but it's all here on these boards. The explanation for what happened in "Bucks Row/Baker's Row" is very apparent, requires no imagination to understand and accept. There was a "Mizen Scam", to be sure. And "Mr. Holmgren's" moniker is - if inadvertently so - quite appropriate. Alas, it does not convict anyone as "Jack the Ripper", or even suggest anyone was an awful human being. So, it's quite boring and will not result in internationally sent documentaries translated into Pashto.

[Harry D]

I think the research Mr. Holmgrem has done is probably the most realistic on the subject of JTR. Unlike Cornwell's Sickert research or Knight's fantasy about the evil 3.

I hope no one really accused anyone of being immoral because of an opinion on a 128 year old murder mystery! that would be ridiculous on it's face.

Interesting registration date to Lechmerian ratio on here.

[Patrick S]

I think the research Mr. Holmgrem has done is probably the most realistic on the subject of JTR. Unlike Cornwell's Sickert research or Knight's fantasy about the evil 3.

I hope no one really accused anyone of being immoral because of an opinion on a 128 year old murder mystery! that would be ridiculous on it's face.

"Mr. Holmgren" has done excellent research. There can be no doubt. However, using Cornwell and Knight as measuring sticks diminishes his work. The issue(s) arise when others digest the research and do not reach the conclusions desired by "Mr. Holmgren" and his trusty sidekick, "Eddie". I see you are somewhat new here, Columbus. So, I'll venture a guess: Once you've been exposed to all that's required of you to view Lechmere as Jack the Ripper, you'll be less believing in the theory, while still complimentary and appreciative of the research required to present it.