Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[harry]

Fisherman,
When you post on these threads,you are addressing your comments to anyone reading those posts,not to just one personA recent Ídiot comment by you to a poster is just one instance.Yes you will claim it was directed at the content and not the poster,but should it have been used at all.Does it not reflect on the poster himself?

Colombo,
I do not believe I have a faulty memory,but I apologise to you if I did state wrongly.Still again,I w ill point you to post 392.Wasn't that an unfair remark about a respected person?
Ok,is he a strong suspect? let's look at the facts.Was he observed killing Nichols?Was a weapon used in the killing traced to him.Is there any bloodstain testimony that directly connects him to the killing. Was he observed by Paul to be acting in a suspicious manner.Was there an intent to kill on his part,expressed perhaps in threats to women in some manner.
Can his account of his presence in Bucks Row be proven false.
Those are elements of the crime that have to have proof when considering Cross,and remember,an accuser should start with a presumption of innocencence.

[Hercule Poirot]

Hi Harry,

I will have to go back through my posts but I believe I said Cross was good for the Nichols murder but I don't know if he's JTR. If you could provide an example that would be helpful.

I have found a lot of posts here (including yours) that make some very good points against Fisherman's theory. Do any of these posts sway me in any direction? Not really, because they haven't been strong enough to disprove the theory posted on this thread, which for the most part deals with Lechmere using the name Cross to cover his butt, and lying to the cops.

I don't think your opinion about Cross being innocent is rubbish at all. That's your opinion and I respect that. I don't think I said Cross was innocent but it's certainly possible that he is. If I disagree with anything from your posts it may be your reasoning for your belief not the belief itself.

As a celebrated crime enthusiast (which may not be a good hobby, it's a good thing I have other interests) I try not to pick suspects in cases such as this because we all know we will never definitely know who JTR was. What I do know is who wasn't JTR and based on Fisherman's research and my own Cross does not fall under that category. He very well could have been JTR. He certainly is a strong suspect/person of interest for the Nichols murder and he needs to be fully explored.

Right now as it stands, this is a good theory and I feel it's plausible.

As for people getting nasty, or if there is retribution to be had over a disagreement, I'm not worried about it. I'm trying to find and converse with people who have a common interest with me. I'm not interested in petty bickering. Although I do enjoy a good ribbing once in a while

Comments like the ones you've been making are so reconforting. It tends to bring back a balance between adverse opinions which existed here on Casebook years ago. Keep it up and thank you for these mpments of fresh air.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

P.S. Sorry for my awfdul English, French being my usual 'idioma'.

[Columbo]

Fisherman,
When you post on these threads,you are addressing your comments to anyone reading those posts,not to just one personA recent Ídiot comment by you to a poster is just one instance.Yes you will claim it was directed at the content and not the poster,but should it have been used at all.Does it not reflect on the poster himself?

Colombo,
I do not believe I have a faulty memory,but I apologise to you if I did state wrongly.Still again,I w ill point you to post 392.Wasn't that an unfair remark about a respected person?
Ok,is he a strong suspect? let's look at the facts.Was he observed killing Nichols?Was a weapon used in the killing traced to him.Is there any bloodstain testimony that directly connects him to the killing. Was he observed by Paul to be acting in a suspicious manner.Was there an intent to kill on his part,expressed perhaps in threats to women in some manner.
Can his account of his presence in Bucks Row be proven false.
Those are elements of the crime that have to have proof when considering Cross,and remember,an accuser should start with a presumption of innocencence.

Hi Harry,

If you're speaking of the remark I made of Mr. Fido, it wasn't meant to be disrespectful. I'm a big fan of his. I've heard his Jack the ripper mp3s from iTunes. I've also purchased other mp3s he's done. He just sometimes changes or misses the facts occasionally. Not often, but enough to where an idiot like me notices once in a while. I apologize if it was taken as anything other than an example.

To answer your second paragraph, you're absolutely right. Cross and all suspects in any crime need to be given the presumption of innocence. In my opinion, Cross and Paul have been presumed innocent from day one. They were never accused of a crime (I say they not because I think Paul did anything, he just happened to be there as well) in their time.

It's confusing to find out exactly how Cross acted in Bucks Row. There are so many different versions. The only thing we know is he was found with the body of Nichols. Some say he was standing over it, some say crouching next to it. Mr. Fido says Cross jumped into the shadows when Paul showed up.

But he was found with the body and apparently people think for longer than he said. So we know when he says he was in Bucks Row it's not a lie, we just don't know for how long.

The other items you bring up I'm not learned enough on the subject to answer with any intelligence so please forgive me for not addressing them.

I will say this. Hypothetically if he killed Nichols I believe it would've been spur of the moment. Who knows why.

We do know that he wasn't seen killing anyone but he had enough of a heads up to know Paul was not far away, so he had time to pocket the knife.

We do know it was dark, he wouldn't move the body, and Paul didn't inspect Cross for blood, and apparently Mizen had no reason to give them the once over with his lamp.

It's been reported he told Mizen a policeman was already at the scene, which if true would prove he was lying.

He used the name Cross instead of Lechmere at the inquest(as reported in the paper). Am I correct on this?

Based on that I believe he's a very viable suspect. He's not the only suspect of course, but he's got alot more going for him than other suspects.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Comments like the ones you've been making are so reconforting. It tends to bring back a balance between adverse opinions which existed here on Casebook years ago. Keep it up and thank you for these mpments of fresh air.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

P.S. Sorry for my awfdul English, French being my usual 'idioma'.

Thanks Hercule, I appreciate it.

[Rosella]

Who has stated, apart from modern theorists who believe that Lechmere/Cross is a killer, that he was waiting in the shadows or crouched over Nichols' body when Paul approached?

[Columbo]

Who has stated, apart from modern theorists who believe that Lechmere/Cross is a killer, that he was waiting in the shadows or crouched over Nichols' body when Paul approached?

Hi Rosella,

It took me a bit to find it but in the first part of Martin Fido's "On the Trail of Jack the Ripper" he says before Cross could examine Nichols "he heard footsteps and drew back into the shadows. This alarmed Paul who was re-assured when Cross called him to his aid".

This was available on iTunes. It's pretty good.

Columbo

[Damaso Marte]

So because one theory is no good, we aren't allowed say another one isn't?

Strange way of thinking.

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.

[Rosella]

Thanks, Columbo. However, Fido's a modern writer and theorist on the JTR murders, isn't he. Where is his contemporary 1888 source that states that Cross was lurking in the shadows, or anywhere else, for that matter? Sugden has Cross/Lechmere standing in the middle of the road when he heard Paul, by contrast.

[GUT]

Thanks, Columbo. However, Fido's a modern writer and theorist on the JTR murders, isn't he. Where is his contemporary 1888 source that states that Cross was lurking in the shadows, or anywhere else, for that matter? Sugden has Cross/Lechmere standing in the middle of the road when he heard Paul, by contrast.

So does every report I've ever read.

[GUT]

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.

You must be joking.

Go read some of what Jonithan H has copped over Druitt, or Mike Over Tumblety, or Ben over Hutch, or even Dale over Van Gogh.

[Columbo]

Thanks, Columbo. However, Fido's a modern writer and theorist on the JTR murders, isn't he. Where is his contemporary 1888 source that states that Cross was lurking in the shadows, or anywhere else, for that matter? Sugden has Cross/Lechmere standing in the middle of the road when he heard Paul, by contrast.

You're right about Fido Rosella. Unfortunately I only know these discrepancies from modern researchers. I'm still familiarizing myself with the historical record.

Maybe someone more knowledgeable could shed some light on what the contemporary consensus was of what Paul saw Cross do when he came up on him?

Columbo

[Columbo]

You must be joking.

Go read some of what Jonithan H has copped over Druitt, or Mike Over Tumblety, or Ben over Hutch, or even Dale over Van Gogh.

Hi Gut,

Van Gogh? That I gotta check out!

Columbo

[Rosella]

Yes, Van Gogh as Blotchy!

[GUT]

Hi Gut,

Van Gogh? That I gotta check out!

Columbo

Pretty sure it got moved to Pub Talk.

[GUT]

You're right about Fido Rosella. Unfortunately I only know these discrepancies from modern researchers. I'm still familiarizing myself with the historical record.

Maybe someone more knowledgeable could shed some light on what the contemporary consensus was of what Paul saw Cross do when he came up on him?

Columbo

Paul's evidence from the inquest as in the Daily Times

Robert Paul said he lived at 30 Forster street, Whitechapel. On the Friday he left home just before a quarter to four, and on passing up Buck's row he saw a man in the middle of the road, who drew his attention to the murdered woman. He and the man examined the body, and he felt sure he detected faint indications of breathing. the body was partly warm, though it was a chilly morning. He and the man discussed what was best to be done, and they decided that they ought to acquaint the first policeman they met with what they had discovered.

Don't think I have ever seen a contemporary report that place Cross anywhere but in the middle of the Road.