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

[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.

[wigngown]

Patrick S

An excellent summary.

Best regards.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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!

[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.

[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

[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!

[miss marple]

They all have been looked into in some detail, but if 99 per cent of men are not the ripper, there is nothing to find. There is no evidence against anyone. The pleasure of ripperology is speculation. Building a case against a particular subject is a game, as his true identity will never be discovered.
If his true identity was ever discovered, how disappointed everyone would be. Mysteries will always fascinate.

Miss Marple

[MrBarnett]

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

Hi Abby,

Through his army record in particular we probably know more about Bowyer than we do Lechmere.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=25102&highlight=bowyer

Gary

[Columbo]

They all have been looked into in some detail, but if 99 per cent of men are not the ripper, there is nothing to find. There is no evidence against anyone. The pleasure of ripperology is speculation. Building a case against a particular subject is a game, as his true identity will never be discovered.
If his true identity was ever discovered, how disappointed everyone would be. Mysteries will always fascinate.

Miss Marple

Nicely put. that's the fun of the game!