So Cross the Ripper got involved in the investigation. Why did he stop?

[John Wheat]

I don't think it was a very similar MO. He strangled and stabbed his wife. He didn't eviscerate her and pose her and he didn't take any bodyparts. And he was investigated as a suspect at the time and struck off the list.

Strangling and stabbings were pretty common and still are. And if you think they weren't in Whitechapel 1888 then you're not doing your research. Not every murderer and wife beater was found with the body of a JTR victim.

To be fair Lechmere probably never beat his wife or kids or was violent towards his family which is another point in his innocence.

Columbo

Strangulation followed by Post Mortem mutilation sounds like the Rippers MO to me and that coupled with the chalk messages makes Bury likely to be the Ripper or a copycat.

[John Wheat]

If we only look at the rap sheets of the two men, then Bury is the much better suspect.

If we add the circumstances surrounding the murder, that is turned around, and Lechmere is by far the much better suspect.

If it was not like that, then any man with criminal record would be a better suspect than Lechmere, as long as we cannot prove that this criminal man was not anywhere near the murder scene.

It does not work like that. It is deeply ignorant not to realize this.

I have told you this for months on end, but it seems it is a total waste of time. So I will not tell you this anymore. That means you are free to either accept the basics of any murder inquiry (opportunity is the most important demand and proven opportunity makes a man - any man - a better suspect than a man - any man - with no proven opprtunity), or to make a fool of yourself.

Itīs a free world.

Lechmere was a witness pure and simple. There is nothing to indicate his guilt whatsoever. Just because Lechmere found a body does not make him the Ripper. As for me being a fool I think it highly likely the majority of posters on this site regard you as a fool for your ludicrous quest to get Lechmere convicted as Jack the Ripper on no evidence.

[Fisherman]

John Wheat: Lechmere was a witness pure and simple.

The fact of the matter is that you donīt know that - if it was impossible for a witness to be the killer, you could have a point, but it is not, is it? There goes that point of yours.

There is nothing to indicate his guilt whatsoever.

That is wrong too - there are many things pointing in his direction. So much so that a barrister said that it warranted a trial. One more point gone.

Just because Lechmere found a body does not make him the Ripper.

That is true - and hey ho, has anybody ever said that he must be the Ripper on account of it? Nope. And there goes that point, surprise, surprise.

As for me being a fool I think it highly likely the majority of posters on this site regard you as a fool for your ludicrous quest to get Lechmere convicted as Jack the Ripper on no evidence.

Doesnīt bother me at all, John. People who cannot see the relevance in having been found at a murder site at a remove in time that is consistent with being the killer are not very likely to be useful judges of anything, in any capacity.

By the way, I did not say that you are a fool. I said that if you choose to be, itīs your business. The vociferous promoting of Bury as the best bid for the killerīs role is not helpful. And I can guarantee you that you will join me in the minoritieīs corner on that score.
Does that mean that both of us must be wrong? Take heart, no it does not. So you should not be too fearful of not having all that many supporters. This is criminology, not politics.

[John Wheat]

John Wheat: Lechmere was a witness pure and simple.

The fact of the matter is that you donīt know that - if it was impossible for a witness to be the killer, you could have a point, but it is not, is it? There goes that point of yours.

There is nothing to indicate his guilt whatsoever.

That is wrong too - there are many things pointing in his direction. So much so that a barrister said that it warranted a trial. One more point gone.

Just because Lechmere found a body does not make him the Ripper.

That is true - and hey ho, has anybody ever said that he must be the Ripper on account of it? Nope. And there goes that point, surprise, surprise.

As for me being a fool I think it highly likely the majority of posters on this site regard you as a fool for your ludicrous quest to get Lechmere convicted as Jack the Ripper on no evidence.

Doesnīt bother me at all, John. People who cannot see the relevance in having been found at a murder site at a remove in time that is consistent with being the killer are not very likely to be useful judges of anything, in any capacity.

By the way, I did not say that you are a fool. I said that if you choose to be, itīs your business. The vociferous promoting of Bury as the best bid for the killerīs role is not helpful. And I can guarantee you that you will join me in the minoritieīs corner on that score.
Does that mean that both of us must be wrong? Take heart, no it does not. So you should not be too fearful of not having all that many supporters. This is criminology, not politics.

To Fisherman

This is becoming boring now. You believe Lechmere was the Ripper I believe Bury was the Ripper. I have my reasons you have yours. We are never going to agree. I think it pointless to discuss the matter further with you.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

To Fisherman

This is becoming boring now. You believe Lechmere was the Ripper I believe Bury was the Ripper. I have my reasons you have yours. We are never going to agree. I think it pointless to discuss the matter further with you.

Cheers John

That depends on how ready you are to have your views challenged...

[drstrange169]

Elizabeth married Maria's son and shared a house with her but never knew her name?

Some sound reasoning you are offering up.

So is this.

[Fisherman]

Elizabeth married Maria's son and shared a house with her but never knew her name?

Some sound reasoning you are offering up.

So is this.

Changes nothing. You still cannot prove anything but your own thinking that Elizabeth Lechmere knew about the Cross name.

So Iīll buy the flying part and leave the pig to you.

You are welcome to try again, however! I sometimes enjoy people making own goals.

Once we have cleared that hurdle, you may need to ponder how and why Elizabeth Lechmere would have been informed about how a Pickfords carman named Cross had testified at the Nichols inquest.
Iīm sure you have more "facts" to share with us!

[Fisherman]

To suggest that Charles's sister, Emily, didn't know the name of the man who brought her up, is as you wrote previously, "priceless".

So are you suggesting that Emily Lechmere would give away her own brother? Do you really think that there is even an off chance that such a thing could happen? It would be truly priceless!

[David Orsam]

you may need to ponder how and why Elizabeth Lechmere would have been informed about how a Pickfords carman named Cross had testified at the Nichols inquest.

This is confusing.

Only nine days ago, Fisherman, you posted in 'The Liar Paradox of Lechmere' thread (#10) that:

'I have pointed out how Lechmere - if he was the killer - may have been in a situation where he knew hios (sic) wife was aware about when he left, and that he therefore would reasonably not take the risk to lie about it.'

If there was an assumed 'risk' to Lechmere in lying about when he left his house, isn't that assumption based on the idea that Elizabeth might have found out that he was telling the police/inquest a lie in saying he left at 3.30 if, in fact, he left earlier? And doesn't that also rest on an assumption that someone might reasonably have informed Elizabeth of what her husband had told the police/inquest about the time he left his house?

So on the one hand you seem to be saying that Elizabeth might reasonably have found out what her husband told the police/inquest but on the other hand seem to be saying that the idea that she would have found out anything her husband's involvement at the inquest is absurd. Can you untangle this apparent inconsistency?

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: This is confusing.

Life sometimes is.

Only nine days ago, Fisherman, you posted in 'The Liar Paradox of Lechmere' thread (#10) that:

'I have pointed out how Lechmere - if he was the killer - may have been in a situation where he knew hios (sic) wife was aware about when he left, and that he therefore would reasonably not take the risk to lie about it.'

Very true - I did exactly this.

If there was an assumed 'risk' to Lechmere in lying about when he left his house, isn't that assumption based on the idea that Elizabeth might have found out that he was telling the police/inquest a lie in saying he left at 3.30 if, in fact, he left earlier?

It is based on the idea that if somebody - the police - took it upon themselves to ask his wife when he had left on the murder morning, and if Lechmere knew that his wife was aware that he left at X o clock, then he may have been unwilling to risk to give a time that filled the gaps better.

And doesn't that also rest on an assumption that someone might reasonably have informed Elizabeth of what her husband had told the police/inquest about the time he left his house?

It rests on an assumption that Lechmere weighed in the risk that the question could be put to his wife.

So on the one hand you seem to be saying that Elizabeth might reasonably have found out what her husband told the police/inquest but on the other hand seem to be saying that the idea that she would have found out anything her husband's involvement at the inquest is absurd. Can you untangle this apparent inconsistency?

Just did. I am not saying that his wife could have found out what he told the inquest (although it was not an imposibillity). I am saying that he may have been proactive, in case she was contacted by the police.

So actually, until you appeared, there was no tangling at all. But once you stepped in...

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: This is confusing.

Life sometimes is.

Only nine days ago, Fisherman, you posted in 'The Liar Paradox of Lechmere' thread (#10) that:

'I have pointed out how Lechmere - if he was the killer - may have been in a situation where he knew hios (sic) wife was aware about when he left, and that he therefore would reasonably not take the risk to lie about it.'

Very true - I did exactly this.

If there was an assumed 'risk' to Lechmere in lying about when he left his house, isn't that assumption based on the idea that Elizabeth might have found out that he was telling the police/inquest a lie in saying he left at 3.30 if, in fact, he left earlier?

It is based on the idea that if somebody - the police - took it upon themselves to ask his wife when he had left on the murder morning, and if Lechmere knew that his wife was aware that he left at X o clock, then he may have been unwilling to risk to give a time that filled the gaps better.

And doesn't that also rest on an assumption that someone might reasonably have informed Elizabeth of what her husband had told the police/inquest about the time he left his house?

It rests on an assumption that Lechmere weighed in the risk that the question could be put to his wife.

So on the one hand you seem to be saying that Elizabeth might reasonably have found out what her husband told the police/inquest but on the other hand seem to be saying that the idea that she would have found out anything her husband's involvement at the inquest is absurd. Can you untangle this apparent inconsistency?

Just did. I am not saying that his wife could have found out what he told the inquest (although it was not an imposibillity). I am saying that he may have been proactive, in case she was contacted by the police.

So actually, until you appeared, there was no tangling at all. But once you stepped in...

I see huge amounts of tangling here Fisherman.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand you to be saying that the police (or someone) might well have taken it upon themselves to ask Elizabeth Lechmere when Charles Cross left for work that morning.

Two questions arise:

Firstly, why do you say the police (or anyone) might have spoken to Elizabeth Lechmere about Charles Cross's movements?

Secondly, wouldn't the first thing that Elizabeth Lechmere asked the police have been: "Who is Charles Cross?"

And if she had done that, wouldn't that answer the question you posed rather incredulously to drstrange as to how Elizabeth Lechmere would have been informed about how a Pickfords carman named Cross had testified at the Nichols inquest?

Please unravel.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: I see huge amounts of tangling here Fisherman.

I donīt. But you seem very set on conjuring up tangles where they are nowhere to be seen, so I am not surprised in any way.

This time, however, I am not going to let things descend into another Orsam crusade ā la Don Quijote, so hereīs what I have to say, full stop:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand you to be saying that the police (or someone) might well have taken it upon themselves to ask Elizabeth Lechmere when Charles Cross left for work that morning.

That should be fairly obvious. It is not the same as they WOULD do it, but they certainly COULD . I suspect this is where you dropped the map.

Two questions arise:

Really?

Firstly, why do you say the police (or anyone) might have spoken to Elizabeth Lechmere about Charles Cross's movements?

Because the police has been known to ask people connected to persons who figure in murder investigations for information adhering to the latter ones.

Secondly, wouldn't the first thing that Elizabeth Lechmere asked the police have been: "Who is Charles Cross?"

I could not say. But it is reasonable to suggest that the topic could have come up.

And if she had done that, wouldn't that answer the question you posed rather incredulously to drstrange as to how Elizabeth Lechmere would have been informed about how a Pickfords carman named Cross had testified at the Nichols inquest?

Only if the police DID ask ELizabeth Lechmere about anything at all. Apparently, they did not.
You see, Charles Lechmere could not have known whether they would or not. He would - reasonably - have hoped that they would not, but bank on it, he couldnīt.

So what was he to do? I reason that he hung on to the hope that the police would not ask away in Doveton Street, and so he chose the name Cross. Therefore, IF anybody spoke to his wife about the case, he did not run the risk that they said "funnily, the man had the exact same name as your husband". And consequentially, he stood a better chance to remain undisclosed to wife, family and aquaintances.

If, however, the police DID ask questions at his home, then he would have the awkward situation of having called himself Cross, and his wife would probably go "Who is Charles Cross". At that stage, he could always - just as has always been the premise - say that he wanted to honour his old stepdad, and add that he sometimes did go by the name of Cross (even if that was a lie). And he would be able to have the time he had given confirmed, with any luck, adding to his credibility.

There was never any way that Lechmere could do what he did (if he did what I think he did) without running a risk. I have argued this in debated with Caz a million times, and it has not sunk in.

I donīt know about you, maybe you are a bit more receptive. No matter what, hereīs the answer you are getting, end of.

Now you have the double advantage of being able to get the last word and claim that I am running because I cannot answer your questions.

Sweet, huh?

[David Orsam]

What an extraordinary amount of wriggling and failure to give plain and simple answers. You really don't like to say "yes" where you can write a hundred words basically saying "yes" do you?

Among all the wriggling, I perceive that you have now answered the question that you posed incredulously to drstrange as to how Elizabeth Lechmere could have been informed that a man named Cross (i.e. her husband) testified at the inquest.

As he gave his real address of 22 Doveton Street, the police (or anyone) could have gone to that house and spoken to her. According to you, Lechmere appreciated the risk of this happening and, no doubt, that is how it could have happened.

If you need any further assistance with this matter please don't hesitate to let me know.

[Columbo]

Strangulation followed by Post Mortem mutilation sounds like the Rippers MO to me and that coupled with the chalk messages makes Bury likely to be the Ripper or a copycat.

True there are similarities but it most definitely not a copycat. Bury stuck his wife in a trunk and turned himself into the police. he strangled her with a rope. If he were JTR he could've very easily taken his wife to a dark road and really kill her and make her a ripper victim. I have no opinion either way about Bury being JTR.

I know this is not for this thread but I thought it was proper to apply.

Columbo

[Columbo]

To Fisherman

This is becoming boring now. You believe Lechmere was the Ripper I believe Bury was the Ripper. I have my reasons you have yours. We are never going to agree. I think it pointless to discuss the matter further with you.

Cheers John

Everyone's got opinions on JTR. It's obvious that Lechmere is not your candidate but don't let it stop you from providing your opinion on the subject of the thread. Even dissenters provide good information.

Columbo