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

[John G]

I'm no researcher but would love to see similar witnesses/persons of interest like lech looked into-Like bowyer, Barnett and Richardson.

Or even John McCarthy!

[Elamarna]

I'm no researcher but would love to see similar witnesses/persons of interest like lech looked into-Like bowyer, Barnett and Richardson.

Abby

Barnett already has been surely ?

But yes interesting idea, you never know what you might find?

Steve

[Abby Normal]

I'm no researcher but would love to see similar witnesses/persons of interest like lech looked into-Like bowyer, Barnett and Richardson.

[John G]

well I for one don't think lech is that bad of a suspect. Hes better than most of the nonsense that gets put out there, and is exactly the type of person that needs more looking into.

Ive got him in the group slightly behind my big 6.


calls for lech being done and flogging a dead horse and such is close minded thinking IMHO.

I like the debate too-learning new stuff everyday.

btw-ALL the suspects are weak-some are just less weak than others.

Excellent point Abby. In fact, my current favourite suspect is None of the Above!

[Elamarna]

btw-ALL the suspects are weak-some are just less weak than others.

Abby

never a truer comment made, All have weaknesses.

Some are stronger than others, but that is only relatively speaking.

Even the strongest have a status of:

"could possible be" rather than "could probably be"

Steve

[Patrick S]

I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) Fisherman said that Lechmere pulled the clothes down far enough to cover the wounds so paul wouldn't see them. And then of course Paul pulled it down the rest of the way. Obviously this is open for debate and I think relies on how quick-thinking lechmere was.

I'll catch heat for this but there is a problem with Lechmere interrupting the killer. If he did, the killer must've be close by because no one heard anyone running away. But, and I think Fisherman hit upon this, why would the killer cover the wounds before he left? He clearly didn't care in the other murders whether wounds showed or not. In theory that would be the obvious thing to do if someone was approaching while you had begun your mutilations.

Columbo

A few things to discuss here. First, we don't know to what extent anyone (Cross or Paul) pulled Nichols' clothing down. It is supposition that her clothes were partially pulled down (by the killer) in a hurried attempt to cover the wounds. We don't know how much of Nichols body was exposed or how much Paul covered up.

Second, we know that it was very dark. Dark enough that the men did not notice the wound to Nichols' neck (which had nearly decapitated her), even though Paul bent low enough to her to have touched her. They didn't notice any visible blood. If we believe Cross, it was dark enough for him - from just a few feet away - to have confused her body with a tarpaulin. Thus, the wounds may have been exposed and simply not observed due to darkness.

Third, serial killers evolve, progress, take advantage of opportunity and environment. If Tabram were JtR's first victim, then we see a substantial change/evolution in how the Nichol's murder was carried out. The same can be said for Chapman. Nichols was handled quite gently compared with Chapman. Here intestines were removed and place above her shoulder, etc. Of course, the killer was afforded more privacy this time around. A lesson he likely learned from his first murder, whether he had he been interrupted or simply found the lack of privacy in Buck's Row to constrictive. Eddowes' face was horribly mutilated, something not found with Tabram, Nichols, Chapman. We know the killer had privacy and time with Kelly. And we saw the results there were quite different indeed.

[Patrick S]

well I for one don't think lech is that bad of a suspect. Hes better than most of the nonsense that gets put out there, and is exactly the type of person that needs more looking into.

Ive got him in the group slightly behind my big 6.


calls for lech being done and flogging a dead horse and such is close minded thinking IMHO.

I like the debate too-learning new stuff everyday.

btw-ALL the suspects are weak-some are just less weak than others.

I feel almost exactly as you do, with respect to Lechmere. I think my frustration has always been with how "Fisherman" and others present him.

For them, it's not quite "case closed" but it's very close. Of course, as I've stated repeatedly, what we know of the man, his life, his actions, words, etc., tell us - overwhelmingly - that he was very likely NOT the Whitechapel Murderer, or any other murderer for that matter. Still, we cannot prove Lechmere didn't kill Nichols any more than "Fisherman" can prove that he did. We can only discuss and debate, and argue about what's most likely. I agree that we've all learned a tremendous amount about the case as a result.

I have always been frustrated by the fact that "Fisherman" and Edward found a very interesting fact about a very important piece of the JtR fabric: Charles Cross was Charles Lechmere. This is a wonderful contribution. I found this information nearly as interesting as the photo of Chapman, alive and well. I so thoroughly enjoy finds like these, and have great appreciation and admiration for those who unearth them.

The frustration comes due to the fact that they didn't stop there. I think it is understandable to find such information - on its face - suspicious. However, there is nothing beyond this one inconsistency that adds to the suspicion. In my opinion, once we move beyond the "mystery" of Lechmere/Cross, we have nothing at all. I think the theory would have gained more traction on these boards if, say, Lechmere would have been found to have given a "false" name AND had been a lifelong bachelor, or had a mother, sister, girlfriend who may have possibly been a prostitute. I think it would be more viable had we found he'd been arrested, just once, for making threats, throwing a drink in a woman's face, or punching a horse, like Mongo in 'Blazing Saddles'. SOMETHING! Anything...... In my view, everything that's presented requires some creative thinking and supposition that I'm simply willing to apply here.

I think many of us feel that this type of information about a key witness, a victim, a policeman, doctor, et al, need not "solve" the crime to be interesting and worthy of discussion.

[Patrick S]

Yep Fisherman said he was.

Correct. "Fisherman" maintains he was a psychopath because "IF" he killed Nichols and stuck around Buck's Row to engage Paul, went looking for Mizen, showed up at the inquest, then continued his career as JtR and the "Torso Killer of Pinchin Street" then he was a psychopath. And since "Fisherman" believes there is an overwhelming probability that he DID do all those things then he WAS, clearly, a psychopath.

[Abby Normal]

well I for one don't think lech is that bad of a suspect. Hes better than most of the nonsense that gets put out there, and is exactly the type of person that needs more looking into.

Ive got him in the group slightly behind my big 6.


calls for lech being done and flogging a dead horse and such is close minded thinking IMHO.

I like the debate too-learning new stuff everyday.

btw-ALL the suspects are weak-some are just less weak than others.

[Columbo]

Columbo,
The theory according to who?.What I read(,it is under Witnesses, Cross,)The inquest testimony given by Cross,is that he(Cross) was standind in the middle of the road when he heard the footsteps,was joined by Paul and both went to the body.I have read that it was Paul who pulled the clothes down.

Your second part requires conjecture.There are two possible answers.The killer,upon being aware of Cross approaching,fled in the opposite direction,or(2) concealed himself close by and left after Cross and Paul had done so.

I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) Fisherman said that Lechmere pulled the clothes down far enough to cover the wounds so paul wouldn't see them. And then of course Paul pulled it down the rest of the way. Obviously this is open for debate and I think relies on how quick-thinking lechmere was.

I'll catch heat for this but there is a problem with Lechmere interrupting the killer. If he did, the killer must've be close by because no one heard anyone running away. But, and I think Fisherman hit upon this, why would the killer cover the wounds before he left? He clearly didn't care in the other murders whether wounds showed or not. In theory that would be the obvious thing to do if someone was approaching while you had begun your mutilations.

Columbo

[wigngown]

Patrick S

An excellent summary.

Best regards.

[harry]

Columbo,
The theory according to who?.What I read(,it is under Witnesses, Cross,)The inquest testimony given by Cross,is that he(Cross) was standind in the middle of the road when he heard the footsteps,was joined by Paul and both went to the body.I have read that it was Paul who pulled the clothes down.

Your second part requires conjecture.There are two possible answers.The killer,upon being aware of Cross approaching,fled in the opposite direction,or(2) concealed himself close by and left after Cross and Paul had done so.

[Columbo]

Hello Columbo,

"It always winds up being a debate of the whole theory, instead of providing the bits of information that the creator of the thread desired."

The problem lies in the fact that there is no information currently known to provide, hence the slight and major diversions.


"So, yeah I've seen a lot of jealousy and animosity against not only this theory but the man who came up with it."

By "this theory" did you mean, that Charles Lechmere was Jtr and Christer came up with it?

As Christer will, I'm sure, more than happily tell you, it's not his theory.
Waaay back in the late 1990's early 2000's I was submitting material for a Jtr related magazine called Ripperoo, one of the other contributors, a man named Derek Osbourne wrote an article about Charles Cross being the ripper.

About five years later and quite separately Micheal Conner wrote a series of articles in the Ripperologist that laid out, what is now, the basic case against Charles Lechmere.

The late Chris Scott, was I believe the person that actually discovered that Lechmere and Cross were the same person.

Christer can tell you exactly but I believe he jumped on board the theory in late 2011. Currently the most respected and generally regarded as the number one researcher pushing the Xmere theory is Edward Stow. He has been in contact with the family and has discovered lots of new information. He is writing a book about it.


>>Can any of the long winded dissenters cite any post where they just answered the question of this post without being rude and obnoxious? I doubt it.<<

If you page back you'll see this thread was civil and friendly, though perhaps not always directly on topic, up to post # 43, so it can happen!

Hey Dusty,

You're obviously right about the situation and I do get that. I didn't mean to imply Christer came up with the theory itself, just the evolution of it.

I guess it's taking me a while to acclimate, but I'll get there

Columbo

[drstrange169]

Hello Columbo,

"It always winds up being a debate of the whole theory, instead of providing the bits of information that the creator of the thread desired."

The problem lies in the fact that there is no information currently known to provide, hence the slight and major diversions.


"So, yeah I've seen a lot of jealousy and animosity against not only this theory but the man who came up with it."

By "this theory" did you mean, that Charles Lechmere was Jtr and Christer came up with it?

As Christer will, I'm sure, more than happily tell you, it's not his theory.
Waaay back in the late 1990's early 2000's I was submitting material for a Jtr related magazine called Ripperoo, one of the other contributors, a man named Derek Osbourne wrote an article about Charles Cross being the ripper.

About five years later and quite separately Micheal Conner wrote a series of articles in the Ripperologist that laid out, what is now, the basic case against Charles Lechmere.

The late Chris Scott, was I believe the person that actually discovered that Lechmere and Cross were the same person.

Christer can tell you exactly but I believe he jumped on board the theory in late 2011. Currently the most respected and generally regarded as the number one researcher pushing the Xmere theory is Edward Stow. He has been in contact with the family and has discovered lots of new information. He is writing a book about it.


>>Can any of the long winded dissenters cite any post where they just answered the question of this post without being rude and obnoxious? I doubt it.<<

If you page back you'll see this thread was civil and friendly, though perhaps not always directly on topic, up to post # 43, so it can happen!

[Columbo]

Any person indulging in a personal insult on this thread, for the forseeable future, can expect to receive a six month ban. Argue the merits of the case, not the personalities and shortcomings of the people you are arguing against.

I apologize to all posters if I have done so.

Columbo