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

[Harry D]

the carmen had a motive for passing through the street. They were going to work.

Exactly, Pierre. A pertinent point that often falls on deaf ears. If a prostitute had been killed in Buck's Row at 3:40am, isn't it likely that someone like Lechmere would've been first to find the body? ...Oh right, that DID happen!

[Patrick S]

Correct,they were not considered suspects at the time. That is important to remember, but the evidence that has come to light since then has made Lechmere an interesting subject.

Columbo

What evidence?

[Columbo]

Strange comment. What about the other people who were the first to find the bodies? Why is Cross any different? ie what about John Davis who found Chapman? or John Richardson the "leather cutting" man from the Chapman scene who said he did not see any body, but the Coroner was interested enough to ask him to produce the knife he used. ie he "produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market." Another strange comment.... where was the one he "borrowed"??

I do have some doubts on John Richardson's story. But that's another thread.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Scroll back, Pierre - there are years and years of posts for you to sift through, and the answers are all there.

Specific matters, I will most of the time answer. But I will not repeat the whole theory over and over and over again.

Some will say I already did, even!

I don't blame you. I've had alot of catching up to do as well and I think you and others have spent valuable time repeating yourselves instead of being able to answer the basics of the thread.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Colombo,
There were scores of interesting people involved in the Whitechapel killings,but being interesting does not equate to suspect in the killings.
Regards.

I agree 100% with you. But it's all academic at this point. I find Lechmere/Cross a fascinating theory, but I wouldn't commit to saying he's the prime suspect yet, or even a suspect at all. Fisherman presents a pretty good basis for his theory and I think it's worth exploring. Let's say Lechmere is a good candidate for the suspect category.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

What about the other people who were the first to find the bodies? Why is Cross any different? ie what about John Davis who found Chapman?

When Davis ran out into the street after having found Chapman, she had been dead for the very least one hour. The more probable thing is that she had been dead for three hours.

When Lechmere "found" Nichols, she would go on to bleed for many minutes afterwards. He "found" her at a remove in time that is seemingly consistent with her death.

Thatīs how Lechmere differs.

[Fisherman]

Hypothesis:

Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, a serial killer who murdered at least five women in 1888.

Hypothesis based on:

A) Original police sources:

1. Metropolitan police, CID, Scotland Yard, Donald Swanson. 19th October 1888:


"3.45 a.m. 31st. Augst. The body of a woman was found lying on the footway in Bucks Row, Whitechapel, by Charles Cross & Robert Paul carmen, on their way to work."


2. 1. Metropolitan police, CID, Scotland Yard, Abberline, Shore, Swanson. 19th October 1888:


"I beg to report that about 3.40 am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, "carman" of 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green was passing through Bucks Row, Whitechapel (on his way to work) he noticed a woman lying on her back on the foot way (against some gates leading into a stable yard) he stopped to look at the woman when another carman (also on his way to work) named Robert Paul of 30 Foster St., Bethnal Green came up, and Cross called his attention to the woman, but being dark they did not notice any blood, and passed on...".


So:

What are the details about Charles Cross in these two original police sources?

The first original source says that:

1. The body of a woman was found by Charles Cross & Robert Paul. They were both on their way to work.

"Found" is defined as an incident including two people.

The first original source

does not say anything about the geographical position of Charles Cross in the street.

does not say that Charles Cross was alone in the street.

does not say that Charles Cross was alone with the body.

does not say that Charles Cross was standing in the street, alone or together with Robert Paul.


The original source does say that the carmen were on their way to work. This means that:

the carmen had a motive for passing through the street. They were going to work.

the carmen where not without a motive.

The second source gives us that:

Charles Cross stopped to look at the woman when another carman (also on his way to work) named Robert Paul came up

"Stopped to look at the woman when another carman came up" is described, in this original source, as a simultaneous event.

The second original source

does not say anything about the geographical position of Charles Cross in the street.

does not say that Charles Cross was alone in the street.

does not say that Charles Cross was alone with the body.


The second original source does say that the carmen were on their way to work. This means that:

the carmen had a motive for passing through the street. They were going to work.

the carmen where not without a motive.

Now, Fisherman, we do not have the original inquest. And therefore you also try to base your hypothesis on

B) newspaper articles wich have tendencies and variation between them.

This means that the rest of the "facts" that you want to establish about Lechmere, is taken from problematical sources. You do not even know the names of the journalists who wrote the articles you are using.

And as I have shown you earlier in the forum, the article with Robert Paul has a tendency: to criticize the police. Therefore, this source should be discarded.

Now; please tell me how Charles Lechmere could be not only the killer of Polly Nichols, but also the serial killer called Jack the Ripper?

Your evidence is based on the two police sources above and newspaper articles with tendencies.

How exactly do you draw the conclusion that Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper from these
sources?

Thank you.

Kind regards, Pierre

Scroll back, Pierre - there are years and years of posts for you to sift through, and the answers are all there.

Specific matters, I will most of the time answer. But I will not repeat the whole theory over and over and over again.

Some will say I already did, even!

[Pierre]

"Threatened"? The Lechmere theory?

Please...!

You have nothing - and you call that nothing the end of the theory. Itīs more like the end of all logic.

Hypothesis:

Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, a serial killer who murdered at least five women in 1888.

Hypothesis based on:

A) Original police sources:

1. Metropolitan police, CID, Scotland Yard, Donald Swanson. 19th October 1888:


"3.45 a.m. 31st. Augst. The body of a woman was found lying on the footway in Bucks Row, Whitechapel, by Charles Cross & Robert Paul carmen, on their way to work."


2. 1. Metropolitan police, CID, Scotland Yard, Abberline, Shore, Swanson. 19th October 1888:


"I beg to report that about 3.40 am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, "carman" of 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green was passing through Bucks Row, Whitechapel (on his way to work) he noticed a woman lying on her back on the foot way (against some gates leading into a stable yard) he stopped to look at the woman when another carman (also on his way to work) named Robert Paul of 30 Foster St., Bethnal Green came up, and Cross called his attention to the woman, but being dark they did not notice any blood, and passed on...".


So:

What are the details about Charles Cross in these two original police sources?

The first original source says that:

1. The body of a woman was found by Charles Cross & Robert Paul. They were both on their way to work.

"Found" is defined as an incident including two people.

The first original source

does not say anything about the geographical position of Charles Cross in the street.

does not say that Charles Cross was alone in the street.

does not say that Charles Cross was alone with the body.

does not say that Charles Cross was standing in the street, alone or together with Robert Paul.


The original source does say that the carmen were on their way to work. This means that:

the carmen had a motive for passing through the street. They were going to work.

the carmen where not without a motive.

The second source gives us that:

Charles Cross stopped to look at the woman when another carman (also on his way to work) named Robert Paul came up

"Stopped to look at the woman when another carman came up" is described, in this original source, as a simultaneous event.

The second original source

does not say anything about the geographical position of Charles Cross in the street.

does not say that Charles Cross was alone in the street.

does not say that Charles Cross was alone with the body.


The second original source does say that the carmen were on their way to work. This means that:

the carmen had a motive for passing through the street. They were going to work.

the carmen where not without a motive.

Now, Fisherman, we do not have the original inquest. And therefore you also try to base your hypothesis on

B) newspaper articles wich have tendencies and variation between them.

This means that the rest of the "facts" that you want to establish about Lechmere, is taken from problematical sources. You do not even know the names of the journalists who wrote the articles you are using.

And as I have shown you earlier in the forum, the article with Robert Paul has a tendency: to criticize the police. Therefore, this source should be discarded.

Now; please tell me how Charles Lechmere could be not only the killer of Polly Nichols, but also the serial killer called Jack the Ripper?

Your evidence is based on the two police sources above and newspaper articles with tendencies.

How exactly do you draw the conclusion that Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper from these
sources?

Thank you.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

You have accused me of deception. That says a lot about you, my friend!

It wasn’t an accusation, it was a statement. You misled the people on this thread. Here is the deceit,
"So are you suggesting that Emily Lechmere would give away her own brother?"
On what planet would that sentence imply, suggest or be understood as meaning Emily Lechmere was dead?

Nobody on the list, it seems, read it in any other way, than, a sister would not give away her brother. It is in that context both Columbo and I answered your question..

It's called trust.

Trust, that you would be telling us the truth not leading us on for some pathetic, imagined "gottcha" moment.


"I have not deceived you in any way."

“So are you suggesting that Emily Lechmere would give away her own brother?”
Are you claiming those aren’t your words? Clearly a deception has taken place.

I could have told you from the outset that Emily Lechmere was dead in 1888. And I would have done so, if I had been met with any form of respect myself.

“Respect” glad you mentioned it. Read on.

Have you met my posts with respect, Dusty? Or have you met them with scorn and mocking?

Are you lying? I don’t mean that as an insult, I mean as a factual statement.

Let’s check.

Back to beginning of this thread is there any scorn or mocking by me, you, anyone?

Did you look?

There is none until suddenly there is an outburst of abuse from someone in post #44 who was it? It’s was you,
“Thatīs about 35 words. Your post was not worth it, but I am in a generous mood. To be honest, the one word horseshite would have sufficed.” Does that class as scorn and mocking?

You disagree with what I wrote, that’s fine, why not reply in the same tone, why start being aggressive and why lie about it and accuse me of starting it?

But wait, as they say in the ads, there’s more.

Post #45 with no comment from me you continue your little temper tantrum of abuse.
“Your last post revealed just how much you know about facts, Dusty: Nothing. Nada. Rien. Keines. It was one of the worst cases of misinformation that has been spread about the Lechmere errand, and that is saying a lot!!”
Not content you continue,
“Priceless! Get a hobby!
How about post #51?
“You are becoming increasingly deluded.”

“Get real. Stop twisting things. Stop obfuscating. You have - from the outset - brought nothing but a pile of rubbish to the discussion. I suggest you take up juggling, singing or grilling instead. You cannot possibly do worse there.”

Post # 52

“One of us lies. Guess who?”

Is there anything from me that is at that level of abuse? No.
You accuse me of your crime. And ever it is.

“May I remind you that you sign off all your posts by quoting me mockingly?”

Do I? Let’s check.

Do I make any “mocking” comment? No.
Did you say those words? Yes.
Did I take them out of context? No.

Let’s talk about why I use that quote because it’s key to what we are discussing here. Trust and respect.
Here in Oz journalists are taught the phrase, "When you have checked the facts, check them again." Apperently they don't teach that in Sweden or do they?

Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
That staggered me so much I made it my sign off.
It still staggers me that you can admit you care so little for accuracy. You claim that you will simply accept something that sounds good for your theory and spread it as true, without checking first to see if it is.

And that’s where trust and respect come in.


"I consider such things puerile and immature and a huge insult to people I am supposed to debate with."

But you’ve told us you won’t debate, you won’t share, you’ve told so, because you are being “mocked and scorned”, but since you are the one that initiates the “mocking and scorning” it’s a catch 22 situation.

On another thread, poster David Orsam asked you about the route you took in the TV show. You refused, that "mocking and scorned thing again. So I checked. Same thing happened there, a normal debate until post# 45 where out of the blue you had another temper tantrum,

"And now you have gone and started an idea that we were "saving seconds". Implying that we had a goal to do so.
Nice. This is the exact kind of thing that happens when an agenda is coupled to lacking knowledge. I actually stopped reading the thread right there and then, and I donīt see myself returning to it any time soon."

Then followed a series of sarcastic posts from you culminating in,
"I am not going to disclose any route just because you ask for it.
You burnt those ships a long time ago.
And THAT, my friend, is no waffle."

You told Trevor,
"Whenever somebody has constructive criticism to offer, I am thorough and concise."
So how about it? Stop keeping secrets. Stop telling fibs, start checking sources.

"You are willing to debate in a friendly and honest climate, you say?"

There you go again, no I didn’t. Here’s what I actually wrote,
“If you want to start discussing issues related to Jtr openly and honestly, like the rest of us, I’m happy to do so.”
I can’t be friendly to someone who initiates abuse, misquote me and doesn’t respond honestly. All of which you have done on this thread.
I can and do discuss without rancor, as I did here until you started to lose it.

"Itīs all up to you."

If it were up to me we wouldn’t be having this conversation, I did the right thing, you didn’t from post #44 onwards.

I have no control over that.

Thatīs a lot of space spent for no good reason. The question "So are you suggesting that Emily Lechmere would give away her own brother?" is answered "No, she could not, because she was dead 1888" - by those who are aquainted with the case details.

Those who are not, and who offer Emily Lechmere as an example of somebody who would potentially read and understand that Charles Cross was Charles Lechmere (like you did), have themselves to blame for not aquainting themselves with the facts. You do speak a lot about how you are superior to me when it comes to handling the facts, so one would think that you had more to show for it. And now that you are caught with your pants down, you think I am to blame...!

Trying to teach me or anybody else about trust and respect is not something you should dabble in. The mere suggestion is beyond ridiculous.

Now, go sulk somewhere else. Iīm done with this discussion.

[drstrange169]

You have accused me of deception. That says a lot about you, my friend!

It wasn’t an accusation, it was a statement. You misled the people on this thread. Here is the deceit,
"So are you suggesting that Emily Lechmere would give away her own brother?"
On what planet would that sentence imply, suggest or be understood as meaning Emily Lechmere was dead?

Nobody on the list, it seems, read it in any other way, than, a sister would not give away her brother. It is in that context both Columbo and I answered your question..

It's called trust.

Trust, that you would be telling us the truth not leading us on for some pathetic, imagined "gottcha" moment.


"I have not deceived you in any way."

“So are you suggesting that Emily Lechmere would give away her own brother?”
Are you claiming those aren’t your words? Clearly a deception has taken place.

I could have told you from the outset that Emily Lechmere was dead in 1888. And I would have done so, if I had been met with any form of respect myself.[/quote] “Respect” glad you mentioned it. Read on.
[quote]Have you met my posts with respect, Dusty? Or have you met them with scorn and mocking?

Are you lying? I don’t mean that as an insult, I mean as a factual statement.

Let’s check.

Back to beginning of this thread is there any scorn or mocking by me, you, anyone?

Did you look?

There is none until suddenly there is an outburst of abuse from someone in post #44 who was it? It’s was you,
“Thatīs about 35 words. Your post was not worth it, but I am in a generous mood. To be honest, the one word horseshite would have sufficed.” Does that class as scorn and mocking?

You disagree with what I wrote, that’s fine, why not reply in the same tone, why start being aggressive and why lie about it and accuse me of starting it?

But wait, as they say in the ads, there’s more.

Post #45 with no comment from me you continue your little temper tantrum of abuse.
“Your last post revealed just how much you know about facts, Dusty: Nothing. Nada. Rien. Keines. It was one of the worst cases of misinformation that has been spread about the Lechmere errand, and that is saying a lot!!”
Not content you continue,
“Priceless! Get a hobby!
How about post #51?
“You are becoming increasingly deluded.”

“Get real. Stop twisting things. Stop obfuscating. You have - from the outset - brought nothing but a pile of rubbish to the discussion. I suggest you take up juggling, singing or grilling instead. You cannot possibly do worse there.”

Post # 52

“One of us lies. Guess who?”

Is there anything from me that is at that level of abuse? No.
You accuse me of your crime. And ever it is.

“May I remind you that you sign off all your posts by quoting me mockingly?”

Do I? Let’s check.

“dustymiller
aka drstrange
"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."Fisherman”

Do I make any “mocking” comment? No.
Did you say those words? Yes.
Did I take them out of context? No.

Let’s talk about why I use that quote because it’s key to what we are discussing here. Trust and respect.
Here in Oz journalists are taught the phrase, "When you have checked the facts, check them again." Apperently they don't teach that in Sweden or do they?

Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
That staggered me so much I made it my sign off.
It still staggers me that you can admit you care so little for accuracy. You claim that you will simply accept something that sounds good for your theory and spread it as true, without checking first to see if it is.

And that’s where trust and respect come in.


"I consider such things puerile and immature and a huge insult to people I am supposed to debate with."

But you’ve told us you won’t debate, you won’t share, you’ve told so, because you are being “mocked and scorned”, but since you are the one that initiates the “mocking and scorning” it’s a catch 22 situation.

On another thread, poster David Orsam asked you about the route you took in the TV show. You refused, that "mocking and scorned thing again. So I checked. Same thing happened there, a normal debate until post# 45 where out of the blue you had another temper tantrum,

"And now you have gone and started an idea that we were "saving seconds". Implying that we had a goal to do so.
Nice. This is the exact kind of thing that happens when an agenda is coupled to lacking knowledge. I actually stopped reading the thread right there and then, and I donīt see myself returning to it any time soon."

Then followed a series of sarcastic posts from you culminating in,
"I am not going to disclose any route just because you ask for it.
You burnt those ships a long time ago.
And THAT, my friend, is no waffle."

You told Trevor,
"Whenever somebody has constructive criticism to offer, I am thorough and concise."
So how about it? Stop keeping secrets. Stop telling fibs, start checking sources.

"You are willing to debate in a friendly and honest climate, you say?"

There you go again, no I didn’t. Here’s what I actually wrote,
“If you want to start discussing issues related to Jtr openly and honestly, like the rest of us, I’m happy to do so.”
I can’t be friendly to someone who initiates abuse, misquote me and doesn’t respond honestly. All of which you have done on this thread.
I can and do discuss without rancor, as I did here until you started to lose it.

"Itīs all up to you."

If it were up to me we wouldn’t be having this conversation, I did the right thing, you didn’t from post #44 onwards.

I have no control over that.

[harry]

Colombo,
There were scores of interesting people involved in the Whitechapel killings,but being interesting does not equate to suspect in the killings.
Regards.

[Fisherman]

Otherwise what? more threats, insults, character assassination. all cheap shots Christer but thats par for the course with you when when your theory is threatened.

I have no more time for you, or this fantasy theory you have developed. Your obsession has taken a hold on you to the point where you have lost the sense of reality in all of this.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"Threatened"? The Lechmere theory?

Please...!

You have nothing - and you call that nothing the end of the theory. Itīs more like the end of all logic.

[Billiou]

There are, in my opinion, only three people tied to victims. Cross found Nichols and Joseph Barnett and George Hutchinson both admit to visiting or speaking with Mary Kelly. I"m sure others will have more information.

Columbo

Strange comment. What about the other people who were the first to find the bodies? Why is Cross any different? ie what about John Davis who found Chapman? or John Richardson the "leather cutting" man from the Chapman scene who said he did not see any body, but the Coroner was interested enough to ask him to produce the knife he used. ie he "produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market." Another strange comment.... where was the one he "borrowed"??

[Columbo]

Certainly Cross was a person of interest.As was Paul,but of interest only as witnesses.Together, their information speaks of the finding and reporting of the body of Nichols.Nothing incriminating of murder can be applied to either's account,and theirs are the only submissions that matter.

Correct,they were not considered suspects at the time. That is important to remember, but the evidence that has come to light since then has made Lechmere an interesting subject.

Columbo

[Columbo]

I,d be interested to see if a connection between Feigenbaum and Frances Cole could be made [ie. the violent attack on the jugular, the resemblance of a ship,s fireman]. All general aspects, but still curious...

{Hello Fish. Stumbled on the Tot Hots while I was following SA Spurs this season. My futbol team by default now. Just need a jersey so I can wear to next season,s Spurs games (ie. trend setter)}

Hey Robert,

Unfortunately for Trevor Marriott Feigenbaum can't be tied to any of the victims at all. We're gonna get to that on a new feigenbaum thread in the new future.

There are, in my opinion, only three people tied to victims. Cross found Nichols and Joseph Barnett and George Hutchinson both admit to visiting or speaking with Mary Kelly. I"m sure others will have more information.

Columbo