What happened to Lechmere......

[Fisherman]

>>Now, try and fit in this line: "- Was there anyone else there then?" anywhere, getting the answer "- No one at all, Sir."
Hint: It only fits in one place.<<

One place indeed, the correct place as recorded by the other newspapers.

"He went round and found Police-constable Neil with the deceased. At Neil’s suggestion he went for the ambulance, The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. and afterwards assisted to remove the body. Blood was running from her neck."
Evening Post


“Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance. The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. I assisted to remove the body. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."
The Echo


"Witness went to the spot, found Policeman Neil there, and by his instruction witness went for the ambulance. The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."
The Star


"He said, "Go for an ambulance," The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.
Morning Advertiser



"Police-constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. Nobody but Neil was with the body at that time. He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."
Illustrated Police News


"When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."
Telegraph


"The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it."
Daily News



>>The Echo is the only paper that is full in itīs reporting here.<<


Incorrect.

As can be seen above, the Echo omitted the next line

"I assisted to remove the body." And it is THIS LINE, included by the bulk of the other newspapers, that places the "blood" quote in context.

This is a good example of how the Xmere theory is constructed. It's based on playing up the one percenters and ignoring what is overwhelmingly agreed upon and the blindingly obvious.

Because the Echo can be perceived to be of use to the Xmere theory, it becomes the ONLY "accurate" reporting but, let's look at the quality of The Echo's accuracy.

In his quote Fisherman left out the next sentence, with good reason it negates his accuracy claim

" “Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance. The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter. By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-Street ...”

The Echo, again, left out a crucial sentence. The Morning Advertiser tells the FULL story,

"The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?
The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman."

By leaving out Mizen's reply, The Echo turns Baxter's question into a statement completely changing the context.

The Morning Addy gets it right and guess where they placed Mizen's "blood" observation ...

"I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman. "


Poor Fish gets so tangled up in his arguments he doesn't notice the inconsistencies in them. The Echo doesn't mention anything about the blood being congealed. So, even if the Echo had been accurate it would still have disproved his theory!

An absolutely brilliant post, Dusty! Itīs a pity blood donīt run fresh after 25 minutes and that it takes only seven to coagulate. Otherwise you would have a formidable point.
Itīs that damn reality again that screws things up for you.

[Fisherman]

He could also Patrick,have stated he saw a person hurrying away as he approached,there by adding to the police belief that a killer was with Nichols before he(Cross)arrived.
Did the police believe there was another person?Obviously,otherwise there was a reasonable cause to suspect Cross,and arrest him on that suspicion.They treated him as a witness only.By they,I mean all the police,people like Aberline etc, who were searching for her killer.
But we have been informed by fisherman,the police were Crap,they apparently didn't have the intelligence and insight that he(fisherman) possesses.
So who should we be guided by? the authorities of that time,or Fisherman.Make your choice.Witness or Killer?What was Cross?

Much as I would like to be more clever than anybody else, I regretfully donīt think that I am.
I believe that much of the crap job the police did was governed by lacking experience with serial crime, with prejudices that were regarded as science in 1888, with a lack of resources and with odd procedure, none of which goes to blame the acting PC in the street.
I can see that such a thing sits poorly with your wish to paint me out as somebody suffering from illusions of grandeur, so sorry about that.

[Clark]

Right, Clark: Where did it end up in your case?

I really have no idea what you're asking me here. Too many "its" along the way for me to keep track, I'm afraid.

I think it clear that I'm no expert on blood, though I seem to recall that modern man has had a pretty clear understanding of how it works both inside and outside of the body since Harvey.

In any event, the state of the blood didn't make Neil think that Cross was the killer. The state of the blood didn't make Mizen think Cross was the killer. The state of the blood didn't make Llewellyn think Cross was the killer. And the state of the blood didn't make Baxter think Cross was the killer.

I guess that will have to be good enough for me.

Edited to add: After seeing drstrange169's answer, above, I've figured out what you are asking. His answer sounds good enough for me as well.

[drstrange169]

>>Now, try and fit in this line: "- Was there anyone else there then?" anywhere, getting the answer "- No one at all, Sir."
Hint: It only fits in one place.<<

One place indeed, the correct place as recorded by the other newspapers.

"He went round and found Police-constable Neil with the deceased. At Neil’s suggestion he went for the ambulance, The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. and afterwards assisted to remove the body. Blood was running from her neck."
Evening Post


“Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance. The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. I assisted to remove the body. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."
The Echo


"Witness went to the spot, found Policeman Neil there, and by his instruction witness went for the ambulance. The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."
The Star


"He said, "Go for an ambulance," The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.
Morning Advertiser



"Police-constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. Nobody but Neil was with the body at that time. He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."
Illustrated Police News


"When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."
Telegraph


"The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it."
Daily News



>>The Echo is the only paper that is full in itīs reporting here.<<


Incorrect.

As can be seen above, the Echo omitted the next line

"I assisted to remove the body." And it is THIS LINE, included by the bulk of the other newspapers, that places the "blood" quote in context.

This is a good example of how the Xmere theory is constructed. It's based on playing up the one percenters and ignoring what is overwhelmingly agreed upon and the blindingly obvious.

Because the Echo can be perceived to be of use to the Xmere theory, it becomes the ONLY "accurate" reporting but, let's look at the quality of The Echo's accuracy.

In his quote Fisherman left out the next sentence, with good reason it negates his accuracy claim

" “Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance. The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter. By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-Street ...”

The Echo, again, left out a crucial sentence. The Morning Advertiser tells the FULL story,

"The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?
The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman."

By leaving out Mizen's reply, The Echo turns Baxter's question into a statement completely changing the context.

The Morning Addy gets it right and guess where they placed Mizen's "blood" observation ...

"I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman. "


Poor Fish gets so tangled up in his arguments he doesn't notice the inconsistencies in them. The Echo doesn't mention anything about the blood being congealed. So, even if the Echo had been accurate it would still have disproved his theory!

[harry]

He could also Patrick,have stated he saw a person hurrying away as he approached,there by adding to the police belief that a killer was with Nichols before he(Cross)arrived.
Did the police believe there was another person?Obviously,otherwise there was a reasonable cause to suspect Cross,and arrest him on that suspicion.They treated him as a witness only.By they,I mean all the police,people like Aberline etc, who were searching for her killer.
But we have been informed by fisherman,the police were Crap,they apparently didn't have the intelligence and insight that he(fisherman) possesses.
So who should we be guided by? the authorities of that time,or Fisherman.Make your choice.Witness or Killer?What was Cross?

[Patrick S]

He would have had one top priority - get past the police unsearched. To that end, the lie about the police is sheer geniality. After that, yes, he could face problems - but NOT the problem of having been found to carry a bloody knife on his person.

Why would a man whose 'top priority' was to 'get past the police unsearched' go IN SEARCH of a policeman in the company of a another man (a man HE himself approached, asked to come see the body of the woman he is supposed to have killed)? Why PUT himself IN THE PREDICAMENT, only to desperately TRY to FREE HIMSELF FROM THE PREDICDAMENT?

Shall we count the opportunities Cross had to extricate himself BEFORE finding Mizen in Bakers Row to 'get past the police unsearched'? Yes we shall!

1. He could have run away as soon as he heard Paul's approach. It was dark. That would have been easy enough.

2. He could have WALKED away. He had a 40 yard head start. He could have walked away, taken the first turn, disappeared into the night.

3. He could have stayed put to see if Paul kept walking. When Paul tried to avoid him he could have simply LET HIM avoid him and walk on by. Rather, he tapped him on the shoulder and MADE him come look.

4. He could have capitalized on Paul's deduction that he felt a slight movement rather than tell Paul the he (Cross) thought her dead.

5. The two men resolved to find a policeman. Cross could have said he was going the opposite way and walked alone, without Paul. Paul said he was late for work. Cross didn't capitalize on this and say, "I go this way. Don't want to slow you down, old chap. I'll find a PC in my direction and send him along, as well! After all, she's likely only drunk." Rather, he went with Paul.

6. He stayed with Paul until they found a PC. He could have parted ways with Paul at the top of Bucks Row. He could have said he worked left while Paul went right.

Alas, he plays it out. They find a PC. And NOW he's desperate to avoid being searched? The bloody knife stowed on his person bothered him not at all until now, clearly. He didn't give it a thought.

Paul could have been a PC himself, no? Yet, Cross didn't flee when he came along. He stayed put. Paul could have been a retired PC on his way to work as a watchman who may have immediately blown the whistle. Yet, he approached him. Touched him. Asked him to come see. Hardly desperate to avoid being searched.

There were three people in Bucks Row just then. Paul. Cross. Nichols. One was dead. The other (if we play along) killed her. Is it far fetched to believe that Paul - as far as Cross might believe - may have known Nichols? As far as Cross knew, this could be a regular client coming for a quick one before work. "Polly! WAKE UP! It's me Robert! Oh, dear! Are you okay?" It could have been her pimp, her son, husband coming to get her off the street. The point is, he did not KNOW. Yet...he approached Paul. Asked him to come look. I'll say it again. This works ONLY with a crystal ball.

What could happen to him, if Mizen raised hell at the inquest? Well, he could come under suspicion. But he would know that "his" version was the correct one, and that Paul would corroborate him. Mizen would not be able to prove that he lied - Lechmere could just have said "you must have misunderstood".

This ignores the obvious. WHY is CROSS even AT the inquest? Paul's story appears on Sunday. Cross isn't described. He's a man. That's it. Paul diminishes his involvement almost completely. If Cross were the killer, why would he not just sit back and let it play out? Yet, this is called a bombshell? And he runs back to the POLICE one day later? To take the stand? And his goal is AVOID arrest and execution? You could have fooled me.

And that is the exact same scam that he DID use, regardless of what Mizen had to say. There was no way that Mizen was going to win, other than how he could make his superiors believe that he had been lied to. But that applied at any rate. And the main problem was gone.

There is no way that Mizen could win because Mizen was the one telling lies. Just as Thain lied, saying that he hadn't told the slaughtermen of the murder, Mizen lies to obscure his less then professional behavior. Paul is explicit. 'A great shame'. He was 'told she was dead'. "Continued knocking up". So, without the crystal ball, who - Cross or Mizen - was more 'at risk' of being 'found out' (Cross for murder, Mizen for not reacting to the information)? Who can be identified from the Paul's interview? Cross? He's a man. Not a carman. Not a man on his way to work. Not tall. Not short. Not fat. Not skinny. Not well dressed. Not shabby, drunk, sober, white, black, green. Or Mizen? Easy enough to ID a PC knocking up at a specific place, at a specific time, no?

[Fisherman]

Ben: Hi Fisherman,

If Crossmere was the killer, he must have fully anticipated the necessity to sustain a very public charade as innocent witness and initial body-discoverer, which inevitably entailed contact with the police and an appearance in court. He would also have fully anticipated the contradiction between his version of events and Mizen's becoming the subject of widespread scrutiny, and fully anticipated Mizen treating him with great suspicion the moment he realised he had been "scammed", or at the very least lied to.

For your "scam" theory to work - and it's only your fellow Crossmerian(s) who insist that it does - he must have been expecting Mizen to doubt his recollection of the conversation; a small miracle, in other words. But what if the PC did the far more likely thing and stick to his version of events? Crossmere comes under great suspicion, that's what, and the "scam" becomes a disastrous misfire.

... which it never did.

You forget a thing here, Ben. Yes, he could perhaps foresee a reaction from Mizens part - but what choice did he have if had the weapon stashed on his person - and he apparently did, if he was the killer.

He would have had one top priority - get past the police unsearched. To that end, the lie about the police is sheer geniality. After that, yes, he could face problems - but NOT the problem of having been found to carry a bloody knife on his person.

What could happen to him, if Mizen raised hell at the inquest? Well, he could come under suspicion. But he would know that "his" version was the correct one, and that Paul would corroborate him. Mizen would not be able to prove that he lied - Lechmere could just have said "you must have misunderstood".

And that is the exact same scam that he DID use, regardless of what Mizen had to say. There was no way that Mizen was going to win, other than how he could make his superiors believe that he had been lied to. But that applied at any rate. And the main problem was gone.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be finding "applicable examples" of, incidentally; policemen not behaving negligently, or witnesses who wander off suspiciously just before encountering a policeman, leaving their fellow witness to relay important information to that policeman? Can't help much with the latter, I'm afraid.

I want examples of where a PC has called back man number two of what seemed to be a company, after man number one had told the PC something rather uncontroversial. Thatīs what I want. Got any?


You got wrong, you mean. If I erred, it was because I repeated your error under the assumption that you had uncovered a source with which I was unfamiliar.

No, I mean you got it wrong. The clarification was there for you to see on the thread and you missed it.
More importantly, though, your reason for not accepting that Paul could have been out of earshot goes away.

That's right; he could have locked himself in his Romford stables or fallen down a rabbit hole. Kan inte uteslutas!

Exakt - vem som helst kan förstå att det finns mer än ett svar på frågan, även om du - av naturliga skäl - väljer att avstå från en möjlighet.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

If Crossmere was the killer, he must have fully anticipated the necessity to sustain a very public charade as innocent witness and initial body-discoverer, which inevitably entailed contact with the police and an appearance in court. He would also have fully anticipated the contradiction between his version of events and Mizen's becoming the subject of widespread scrutiny, and fully anticipated Mizen treating him with great suspicion the moment he realised he had been "scammed", or at the very least lied to.

For your "scam" theory to work - and it's only your fellow Crossmerian(s) who insist that it does - he must have been expecting Mizen to doubt his recollection of the conversation; a small miracle, in other words. But what if the PC did the far more likely thing and stick to his version of events? Crossmere comes under great suspicion, that's what, and the "scam" becomes a disastrous misfire.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be finding "applicable examples" of, incidentally; policemen not behaving negligently, or witnesses who wander off suspiciously just before encountering a policeman, leaving their fellow witness to relay important information to that policeman? Can't help much with the latter, I'm afraid.

Just like in the "alright" issue you got wrong

You got wrong, you mean. If I erred, it was because I repeated your error under the assumption that you had uncovered a source with which I was unfamiliar.

I am interested to see if your English dictionary has actual proof of Hutchinson having had that opportunity!

That's right; he could have locked himself in his Romford stables or fallen down a rabbit hole. Kan inte uteslutas!

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

I agree Abby!

Blotchy is a local "nobody" with no known name, no known address, no known employment history, no known date of birth, no known date of death, and no way to match him up with any published articles or sources.

This is why he is mainly overlooked by students of the murders.

A local nasty little murdering misogynist who probably died not long after the murder of Mary Kelly.

Sometimes naked is the best disguise!

I would not say that he is overlooked - he has been suggested many a time, not least by people referring to how the man who attacked Ada Wilson had a sunburnt, blotchy appearance.
He does not ring true to me - as I said, a killer like the Ripper who was intent on lightning fast deeds would to my mind not listen to Mary singing her heart out for more than an hour, biding his time. And if the "Oh, murder" cry was real, then we are talking about a time of FOUR hours. Thatīs a bit rich to my mind. I think our killer made it a point to always get down to business as fast as possible.

Blotchy further seems to have made no effort whatsoever to hide his face, and he carried a pale of ale with himself - a feisty customer, as far as I can see.

Accepting the level of evidence we have, with so few people tied to the murder spots, he certainly belongs to the picture, and he is a potential suspect on account of that. Not my cup of tea, though. I like to have them surrounded by lies and anomalies...

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hi Fish/BarnFlat

Not wishing to go too off topic here, but I also favor Blotchy over lech, but believe fish (and poster lech) have done admirable research and put up concise arguments in favor of lechs suspectness.



Maybe because he was waiting for things to die down around the court with all the comings and goings of noisy drunk inhabitants and snooping friends?
And/or was waiting for mary to pass out- as the evidence suggests she did before she was attacked.

and if they knew each other, which it seems they did, then that might have something to do with him waiting also.

The problem with Blotchy is we don't know who he was and just don't know enough about him, which is a reason why I think he is waaaaay overlooked as a good suspect by these boards.

which is what he probably wanted and made sure happened at the time also, if he was the killer.

I agree Abby!

Blotchy is a local "nobody" with no known name, no known address, no known employment history, no known date of birth, no known date of death, and no way to match him up with any published articles or sources.

This is why he is mainly overlooked by students of the murders.

A local nasty little murdering misogynist who probably died not long after the murder of Mary Kelly.

Sometimes naked is the best disguise!

[Abby Normal]

You are dead wrong again. The beer will be on me.

As for Blotchy, well, he was there and as such he beats Bury, as I usually put it - but why did he wait for more than an hour and a quarter to kill Kelly, listening to her singing? That is not the type of blitz strike the Ripper usually employed.
Going by the normal working ethics of a typical prostitute, I would think that Kelly probably sang to different men 11.45 and 1.00. But thatīs just my take, of course. I am at a loss to conclusiverly exonerate our blotchy friend.

Hi Fish/BarnFlat

Not wishing to go too off topic here, but I also favor Blotchy over lech, but believe fish (and poster lech) have done admirable research and put up concise arguments in favor of lechs suspectness.

but why did he wait for more than an hour and a quarter to kill Kelly, listening to her singing? That is not the type of blitz strike the Ripper usually employed.

Maybe because he was waiting for things to die down around the court with all the comings and goings of noisy drunk inhabitants and snooping friends?
And/or was waiting for mary to pass out- as the evidence suggests she did before she was attacked.

and if they knew each other, which it seems they did, then that might have something to do with him waiting also.

The problem with Blotchy is we don't know who he was and just don't know enough about him, which is a reason why I think he is waaaaay overlooked as a good suspect by these boards.

which is what he probably wanted and made sure happened at the time also, if he was the killer.

[Fisherman]

I had acknowledged this when I thanked drstrange169 for pointing out how I was mistaken before you posted your explanation. Sorry if you missed it.

I still do not find it as significant as you do because I have no idea what Mizen's statement that the blood was "somewhat congealed" means in a scientific sense, and because Mizen was speaking of the condition of the blood after having gone to fetch the ambulance, so I don't know how long it had been since the body was discovered.

Your mileage may vary.

"Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.

The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

When Mizen arrived back with the ambulance, Nicholsī cut to the neck had been there for twentyfive minutes plus. The blood was not somewhat congealed at that time, nor did it run from the neck, appearing fresh.

"Somewhat congealed" means the xact same thing in a scientific context as in an everyday context: The congealing was underway. That was the exact interpretation I did and the exact interpretation Payne-James did too.

The Echo is the only paper that is full in itīs reporting here. The others leave out the question the coroner asked, getting it like the Morning Advertiser, reporting ad verbatim:

"I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman."

Now, try and fit in this line: "- Was there anyone else there then?" anywhere, getting the answer "- No one at all, Sir."

Hint: It only fits in one place.

Hint number two: This is where the Daily News fits it in:
The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it.


Right, Clark: Where did it end up in your case?

[Fisherman]

Christer, let me begin by saying that I admire the amount of research you have put into the Cross/Lechmere theory.
Let me also say that I am not engaging in "ad hominem".

The major points in the case against Cross are:
1. The timings of the interaction between Cross and Paul.
2. The condition of the body re blood flow.
3. The confusion over the interaction with PC's Mizen, Thain and Neil.
4. The confusion /subterfuge over his name.

All of the above can be interpreted in several ways, it just seems to me that only by stretching each of these points is there anything resembling a case against Cross.

In an earlier post I put forward what I thought was a telling point indicative of Cross's innocence.
I reproduce it below.

At the inquest into Nichols’ death, Cross says that first impression he had upon seeing the body was that he thought it was a tarpaulin.

I remember reading several years ago, that one of the main indicators that police and psychologists look for when assessing the truthfulness of a witness, is what their first reaction was when the saw the scene, in this case a body.

Because the witness is looking at something which is totally unexpected, he or she will attempt to rationalise the sighting on the basis of past experience.
In this case, Cross stated that he initially thought that the body of Nichols was in fact a tarpaulin.

This is because a dead body, or even an unconscious person is the very last thing his brain would be expected to process, hence his initial impression that the body was a tarpaulin, or a pile of clothes etc.

I think that his initial statement misinterpreting what he saw is strongly indicative that he was in fact telling the truth.

Re my own preferred suspect, I lean towards the blotchy faced man seen with Mary Kelly.
Nothing complicated, just an opportunistic local murderer taking advantage of a drunk Mary Kelly with the promise of a carry out (the pail of beer).

I am aware that criticism of your theory has resulted in some angry and bad mannered comments directed toward you, and I genuinely regret that

So in closing Christer, let me acknowledge that you have mastered your brief very well, and it may well be that you are correct in your suspicions re Cross. I will certainly look forward to buying your book if you ever decide to publish your findings.

I will also be very happy to buy you a beer if we ever run into each other at one of the conferences.

You are dead wrong again. The beer will be on me.

As for Blotchy, well, he was there and as such he beats Bury, as I usually put it - but why did he wait for more than an hour and a quarter to kill Kelly, listening to her singing? That is not the type of blitz strike the Ripper usually employed.
Going by the normal working ethics of a typical prostitute, I would think that Kelly probably sang to different men 11.45 and 1.00. But thatīs just my take, of course. I am at a loss to conclusiverly exonerate our blotchy friend.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Out here? Perhaps not. But then again, that was not to be expected, was it? Out here, there were people who came close to tears when Russel Edwards presented his shawl theory; a scientifically supported theory, what a dreadful day that was!!

The main goal for me was never to persuade people out here. I am here to see if the theory holds up against the kind of barrage that is always directed towards those who dare say that they have the prime suspect.

So far, it does so with ease. And Iīm fine with that. And anything but sorry.

If I should feel sorry for having been dissed by so many so very reputable and knowledgeable ripperologists out here, I can always turn to the comments on the net about the docu. Out there, in the real world, people look differently on matters. For some unfathomable reason.

How about you, Barnflatwyngarde; what do YOU think is the negating factor that sinks the Lechmere ship? And who - if any - do YOU think is the best Ripper suspect?

Christer, let me begin by saying that I admire the amount of research you have put into the Cross/Lechmere theory.
Let me also say that I am not engaging in "ad hominem".

The major points in the case against Cross are:
1. The timings of the interaction between Cross and Paul.
2. The condition of the body re blood flow.
3. The confusion over the interaction with PC's Mizen, Thain and Neil.
4. The confusion /subterfuge over his name.

All of the above can be interpreted in several ways, it just seems to me that only by stretching each of these points is there anything resembling a case against Cross.

In an earlier post I put forward what I thought was a telling point indicative of Cross's innocence.
I reproduce it below.

At the inquest into Nichols’ death, Cross says that first impression he had upon seeing the body was that he thought it was a tarpaulin.

I remember reading several years ago, that one of the main indicators that police and psychologists look for when assessing the truthfulness of a witness, is what their first reaction was when the saw the scene, in this case a body.

Because the witness is looking at something which is totally unexpected, he or she will attempt to rationalise the sighting on the basis of past experience.
In this case, Cross stated that he initially thought that the body of Nichols was in fact a tarpaulin.

This is because a dead body, or even an unconscious person is the very last thing his brain would be expected to process, hence his initial impression that the body was a tarpaulin, or a pile of clothes etc.

I think that his initial statement misinterpreting what he saw is strongly indicative that he was in fact telling the truth.

Re my own preferred suspect, I lean towards the blotchy faced man seen with Mary Kelly.
Nothing complicated, just an opportunistic local murderer taking advantage of a drunk Mary Kelly with the promise of a carry out (the pail of beer).

I am aware that criticism of your theory has resulted in some angry and bad mannered comments directed toward you, and I genuinely regret that

So in closing Christer, let me acknowledge that you have mastered your brief very well, and it may well be that you are correct in your suspicions re Cross. I will certainly look forward to buying your book if you ever decide to publish your findings.

I will also be very happy to buy you a beer if we ever run into each other at one of the conferences.

[Clark]

That is a bit sad - I would like to know what you think about the issue after having been informed about the details I mentioned. Can you see how and why Jason Payne-James said that the carman seems to fit the bill perfectly?

Sometimes, matters like these are simply lost, which I feel is a bit improductive.

I had acknowledged this when I thanked drstrange169 for pointing out how I was mistaken before you posted your explanation. Sorry if you missed it.

I still do not find it as significant as you do because I have no idea what Mizen's statement that the blood was "somewhat congealed" means in a scientific sense, and because Mizen was speaking of the condition of the blood after having gone to fetch the ambulance, so I don't know how long it had been since the body was discovered.

Your mileage may vary.