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

[miss marple]

He was on his way to work and found a women in heap either drunk, dying or dead. Being a concerned citizen he stopped to investigate and involved another passer by and a policeman. They are facts, everything else is speculation, so a thread entitled ' So Cross the ripper got involved in the investigation why did he stop ' is sheer fantasy.
It presumes Cross killed Nichols, so must have been the ripper, so must have killed all the others, so must have involved himself in the investigation of the others, but he did'nt so that is weird!

Dear oh dear. I suppose Fisherman will come back with some sledgehammer response.. It is a mountain of speculation built on the fact that Lechmere had two names, not uncommon in the east end. Some of my ancestors used different names.

No one has proved Lechmere was a 'wrong un, a psychopath or broke the law. The actual evidence as opposed to the speculation is that Lechmere was a hard working family man who raised sucessful children but nobody is interested in that, its not sexy.

Miss Marple

[Patrick S]

Thatīs an outright lie.

It is also an outright lie to claim that she must have known it.

I am saying that it is in no way any established fact.

You, however are falsely claiming that it IS a fact.

One of us lies.

Guess who?

How can a question be an outright lie?

I'll guess which one lies! Hmmmmm....let me think?

[redbird]

I saw a show on The Smithsonian Channel the other night that claims Lechmere was JTR. Pretty interesting show. Although as with all suspects, there are still unanswered questions. But definitely worth watching.

Looks like the next showing is June 8.

http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/shows/the-missing-evidence/jack-the-ripper/1003747/3418209

[Fisherman]

Of course, Elizabeth Lechmere was illiterate, so she would not read any article herself. She would have to rely on how any of her new neighbours would say "Look, mrs Lechmere, didnīt your old man go by the name of Cross in the olden days?"

Likely or not? What do you think?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

Why would his wife have been unaware of the name Cross?

Regards, Pierre

I am not saying that she was or must have been. I am saying that it cannot be claimed as a fact that she must have been aquainted with the name.

I could add that the name Lechmere is a very uncommon one, whereas Cross is in no way uncommon. So even if Elizabeth knew that there was a connection to the name Cross, why would she conclude that the witness Cross would be her husband, especially if he had not told her that he had found the body?

[Fisherman]

Interesting. So are you claiming Elizabeth Lechmere didn't know the name "Cross" and Xmere's relationship to it?

Thatīs an outright lie.

It is also an outright lie to claim that she must have known it.

I am saying that it is in no way any established fact.

You, however are falsely claiming that it IS a fact.

One of us lies.

Guess who?

[Fisherman]

Facts remain facts even if you don't like them.

If you have information to the contrary feel free to share it with the rest of us.

Oh, that's right, I forgot, you don't.

You are becoming increasingly deluded. I am not the one claiming things as facts - you are. And you are consequentially the one who needs to substantiate your claims.

You are welcome to substantiate how you know that Elizabeth Lechmere was aquainted with the name Cross. You are welcome to substantiate that Lechmere notified his employers that he was going to the inquest. You are welcome to substantiate how the employers and coworkers would follow the proceedings in the papers.

You cant. You guess. And nevertheless call it facts.

And now you claim that I am the one having trouble with the facts.

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.

[Pierre]

The theory works from the assumption that Lechmere knew that the cops would either A/ investigate him or B/ not.
Given that the alternative A would have been an open possibility, Lechmere needed to be truthful towards the police to the greatest possible extent. If he lied and was found out, it would spell disaster.

When it comes to his family and aquaintances, the theory resons that he wanted to keep them unaware about his involvment. They could monitor him on an everyday basis, and could easily begin to suspect him.

So there was a dilemma: How to be as truthful as possible to the police and as evasive as possible towards those who knew him intimately?

The answer was:

1. Give the police the real working place, the real address and a name that was one that he could claim a right to. He could not lie about the working place, he could not lie about the address but he COULD claim to use the name Cross at times, and that it was his to use.

2. Serve the family and aquaintances (via the press reporting from the inquest) the name Cross (obscuring him), the real workplace (where hundreds of men worked) and avoid giving the address in front of the inquest (which seemingly was what he did).

Now the police had him nicely registered with information he could claim was correct, whereas the family and aquaintances only had information that a carman named Charles Cross, working at Pickfords, had been a witness at a murder inquest.

Job done.

Itīs not as if we could say that it would be more clever to call himself Tristan Longfellow, living at 2 Harley Street and working at the Home Office. If he was checked out, he would be fried.

Nor would it be better to give the name Charles Lechmere, and the real address and working place, if he wanted to keep his involvement from those who knew him.

I think he may well have optimized the information to suit his purposes, if they were what we think they were.

Hi Fisherman

Why would his wife have been unaware of the name Cross?

Regards, Pierre

[drstrange169]

Elizabeth Lechmere knew her husband’s association with the name “Cross” so it wouldn’t “obscure” anything.
Priceless!
Get a new hobby.

Interesting. So are you claiming Elizabeth Lechmere didn't know the name "Cross" and Xmere's relationship to it?

Facts don't come much factier than that.

Who did she think the woman living in her house with her, called Maria Louise Cross, was?

C'mon Christer, stop wasting everybody's time.

[drstrange169]

Facts remain facts even if you don't like them.

If you have information to the contrary feel free to share it with the rest of us.

Oh, that's right, I forgot, you don't.

[Fisherman]

I came in here to post something, and it's taken me a few minutes to stop laughing. You lot are comedic gold, bless.

Anyway. Re the question of the thread title:

I should think, were the Ripper ever caught in the act or too close to it for comfort.. (or was afraid that he had been), his very best bet would be to feign innocence and shock, and pretend to have discovered the body.

If he were a local man, whose face had been regularly seen in the area, there'd be little point in obfuscating his identity.

The fact that the Ripper's method of killing barely allowed blood to fall on the victim's own clothing suggests he might have been extremely concerned about getting blood all over himself. Thus, if Xmere really was the Ripper, there's a definite chance he'd have minimal blood on him. If he flipped the victim's clothing over her lower body (as opposed to leaving her shamefully exposed, as happened with other victims) he could get away with saying he thought she was merely drunk but hey, let's look altruistic to boot and hunt up some help from the potentially highly damaging witness to check she's not dead - what a brilliant move (this is the area where I think Christer's arguments are strongest, but more on that later). So all he'd really need to explain away is why he was at that place, at that time. Being a few minutes late for work seems innocuous enough..

I really can imagine 'Xmeripper' (who in my mind is presently a fictional construct, but I'm gonna roll with it..) being on put on the spot and conniving his way out of it, by removing himself as a potential suspect by making himself a valuable and very obliging witness, a man who (hopefully) would not be blamed for nothing. It's brilliant, really good stuff.

Why'd he "stop" involving himself? Well, the internal logic of my 'Xmeripper' construct would demand that he never again allow himself to be that nearly caught. The end. It's that simple, really - he would strive to never put himself in the position of being happened-upon ever again.. so there'd be no need whatsoever (assuming he's successful..) for any protracted bouts of self-promotion as a gormless witness. A sheer necessity, I think, considering how much heat surrounded these murders.

Which leaves only the question of why he used his "other" name. If this was "my" Xmeripper, I'd probably leave that bit out. Because it makes more sense for an innocent man to do something like that, out of panicked desire to distance himself from the horrible crime perhaps.. than for a killer to do so, while also giving his correct address and place of work -- which would, let's face it, make this 'Xmeripper construct' unfeasibly stupid.

Did you read post 29, Ausgirl?

[Fisherman]

Fish,

When you say windows and mention carpentry, I'm guessing you mean framing. Bit of a busman's holiday, then.

Gary

Actually no - but a good one nevertheless, Gary!

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:
When you start moving into the realm of pure speculation, things quickly fall apart. Best to stick with the facts.

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!!

And now you (of all people) warn against "pure speculation", following it up with this:

To appear at the inquest Xmere must have notified his employers. The case was the highest profile news in the area at the time. His direct bosses and work mates at Pickfords would have been checking for his appearance at the inquest and alarm bells would having been clanging loudly if any deliberate lies, like fake names came up.

... and this:

Elizabeth Lechmere knew her husband’s association with the name “Cross” so it wouldn’t “obscure” anything.


Priceless!

Get a new hobby.

[Fisherman]

That’s because Mizen misled the inquest.

That’s not my spin, that’s not your spin, that’s “Just the facts Ma’am”.

“I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said …”
P.C.Mizen.

He went through the whole process of identifying Xmere and gave the rest of his evidence without ever mentioning the fact that there were two carmen present.

Imagine the confusion Mizen would have left for future researchers, luckily for history, Baxter eventually intervened asked point blank,

“There was another man in company with Cross?”

To which Mizen finally had to present the true events of that night,

“Yes. I think he was also a carman.”

That’s not the only confusing piece of evidence he gave. He also told the inquest he didn’t continue “knocking up” but, then admitted he did.

“A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?
Witness - No. I only finished knocking up one person.”

We also have the pre-inquest mystery of when PC Neil denied the story of two men finding the body first, Mizen is reported as saying he saw,

“no man leaving the spot to attract attention…”

Forget for a moment any discrepancy with Xmere, Mizen was also directly at odds with Paul’s pre-inquest account.

Mizen was an unreliable witness. That isn’t speculation, it is a verifiable fact.

... and that is of course not true. There is nothing at all to establish Mizen as unreliable as a fact. There is nothing at all to establish that Mizen misled the inquest as a fact.

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.

[drstrange169]

So there was a dilemma: How to be as truthful as possible to the police and as evasive as possible towards those who knew him intimately?
The answer was:
... Serve the family and aquaintances (via the press reporting from the inquest) the name Cross (obscuring him)

When you start moving into the realm of pure speculation, things quickly fall apart. Best to stick with the facts.

Elizabeth Lechmere knew her husband’s association with the name “Cross” so it wouldn’t “obscure” anything. Indisputably, his sister also knew the association with the name “Cross” and quite possibly so did everyone else in the family.

Appearing at the inquest in his work apron highlighted attention on him, an odd thing for a man trying to be “obscure” to do, particularly if he was supposed to be lying to his wife.

… the real workplace (where hundreds of men worked) and avoid giving the address in front of the inquest (which seemingly was what he did).

To appear at the inquest Xmere must have notified his employers. The case was the highest profile news in the area at the time. His direct bosses and work mates at Pickfords would have been checking for his appearance at the inquest and alarm bells would having been clanging loudly if any deliberate lies, like fake names came up.

On the other hand, if he was known as “Cross” at Pickfords EVERYTHING falls into place. The name "Lechmere" would have set off alarm bells at Pickfords but, the name "Cross" would have been fully understood by the family.