Who was the first clothes-puller?

[mariab]

And my question wasn't rhetorical. I'd like to know if Fisherman and Lechmere are one and the same. If so, he needs to be a man and fess up.

Hope you're kiddin' cuz Lechmere's posts have nothing whatsoever to do with Fishstix' very distinctive, wordy, Scandinavian, slow developing style. Lechmere could be American, but not sure. Probably British.

[Tom_Wescott]

Is Fisherman using multiple names? Sock Puppets?

Yeah, blah blah blah. His name was Cross, people. That's what he WANTED to be called. If we want to call everyone by their birth surname, then start calling Stride Gustaffson, etc. Charles Cross...not Lechmere.

And my question wasn't rhetorical. I'd like to know if Fisherman and Lechmere are one and the same. If so, he needs to be a man and fess up.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Versa]

For my part Cross/Lechmere is absolutely the primary person of interest and Im shocked that more is not made of him on these forums.

I don't find it all that surprising, Versa.

do you SEE the size of this thread alone?

Ive been DAYS trying to read it all and catch up and still Im not close to the end of the thread....

Whether you agree with his candidacy as JTR or not, there IS a clear case for Lechmere having at least a place on the forums as a suspect.

Its almost impossible to cover all the points that the people who believe Lechemere is a good candidate or at least is deserving of closer inspection have put forward in one coherent thread.

The evidence for or against him SHOULD be in one place in these forums otherwise valuable evidence that can help people make up their minds WILL be lost.

[curious]

Did he? Do we KNOW this? Do we KNOW that he did not rise fifteen minutes early on his killing mornings? Or thirty? How can we tell? And how sure can we be that he did not have some slack at Pickfordīs, having worked more than two decades there? How do we KNOW that his closest boss would not cover for him - the faithful Pickforder, striving to make ends meet, and with a newborn, probably sickly, child at home?

He worked their for a while-I am sure he had a normal routine down which would have been questioned by his wife if some days he decided to leave early.

Hi, Abby,
I suspect the newborn child could easily have changed C-L's routine and that of everyone in the house. Especially if the baby was ill.

IF C-L were JtR, I would suspect the sick baby could have been the stressor that pushed him over the edge.

I, too, have a problem believing he would kill on his way to work.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Bridewell,

Intimidated?

Robert Paul, Lloyds Weekly Newspaper, 2nd September 1888—

"It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot."

Regards,

Simon

so it sounds like paul could have been intimidated in generalbecause of the nature of the locality, and not immediately knowing lechs intent.

To me its a non starter anyway, because just the mere fact that he saw a man in the distance loitering about, without seemingly walking anywhere with purpose, could have given him pause.

[Abby Normal]

Abby:

"I am sure he had a normal routine down which would have been questioned by his wife if some days he decided to leave early."

But why would she even be awake at that time? She had a sickly infant to tend to during the days, and her powers would be sapped. Lechmere may well have left unnoticed, leaving a sleeping family behind.

" I doubt his boss would jeopordize his own job "covering" for a late employee."

Since I donīt know that boss, I will not guess. I only know that there would have been forgiving and less forgiving bosses, then like now.

"Someone who went through the difficulty of procuring those organs did so with a purpose-not to just throw them away immediately afterwards. "

But now you are clinging on to the belief that he wanted/needed the organs as keepsakes. What if his true aim was to dehumanize/dewomanize his victims. Job done, why keep a messy innard...? That is one solution of a good number of solutions.

He may also have had a stashing place somewhere, either at Pickfordīs or somewhere else. He may have eaten the innards or fed them to the dogs. Point being, we donīt KNOW that he was a trophyhunter, much as it is tempting to think so.

"A light snack on the way to work? I think not."

No? Think Chikatilo.

" I know its obviously not impossible that lech could have been JtR, and if there was any scenario in which we could pin this on him without the whole on the way to work thing, I would be all over him!"

There is more to come, Abby, but not in the immediate future. You will have your go at him, I promise ...

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
Thanks! Look forward to anything new on Lech!!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Bridewell,

Intimidated?

Robert Paul, Lloyds Weekly Newspaper, 2nd September 1888—

"It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot."

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

But Paul was intimidated by Lechmere just the same!

"...as he was passing up Bucks Row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped onto the roadway in order to pass him. He then touched witness on the shoulder, and said, 'Come and look at this woman here' Witness went with him and saw a woman lying right across the gateway."

I'll ask you the same question I asked Lechmere a few posts ago, when he repeated this claim that Paul was intimidated:

I can see evidence that Paul didn't want to be delayed on his way to work, but where is the evidence that Paul felt intimidated? There isn't any, is there? Then again, if you say it often enough people may believe it.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

The added knowledge that Lechmereīs mother and daughter lived at an address to which Berner Street led, means that any rational theorist now has a new factor to weigh in into the Stride murder. It does not change the CRIME SCENE evidence, but when it can be shown that a man who is an immensely strong suspect in the Ripper case had a connection to the murder site ... well, you surely get my drift, donīt you? It is evidence too, see?

I have to disagree with this, Fisherman. The "rational theorist" doesn't determine the probability of Stride being a Ripper victim on the proximity of a particular suspect's mother's address, but on the evidence pertaining to the crime itself. In my own case, I see a similarity between the descriptions of men seen with Stride and that of the man seen, by Lawende, with Eddowes. I therefore incline to the belief that Stride was a Ripper victim. A new suspect with an address nearby will not reinforce that belief, any more than a new suspect with an address in Finsbury Park will diminish it.

when it can be shown that a man who is an immensely strong suspect in the Ripper case had a connection to the murder site ..

An "immensely strong" suspect? Cross has become a suspect because he found a body on his way to work and used two names, and because he had lived in the area. The body was highly likely to be found by a local man on his way to work - and it was. If he had run away, attacked Paul, hidden the body, done anything of a suspicious nature, he might be a strong suspect. He didn't. His actions were entirely consistent with those of an innocent man who has experienced the shock of finding a body on the way to work. A careful examination of Paul's evidence reinforces that belief. If you put the worst possible interpretation on his actions you can make him into a viable suspect, but "immensely strong"? No.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"I am sure he had a normal routine down which would have been questioned by his wife if some days he decided to leave early."

But why would she even be awake at that time? She had a sickly infant to tend to during the days, and her powers would be sapped. Lechmere may well have left unnoticed, leaving a sleeping family behind.

" I doubt his boss would jeopordize his own job "covering" for a late employee."

Since I donīt know that boss, I will not guess. I only know that there would have been forgiving and less forgiving bosses, then like now.

"Someone who went through the difficulty of procuring those organs did so with a purpose-not to just throw them away immediately afterwards. "

But now you are clinging on to the belief that he wanted/needed the organs as keepsakes. What if his true aim was to dehumanize/dewomanize his victims. Job done, why keep a messy innard...? That is one solution of a good number of solutions.

He may also have had a stashing place somewhere, either at Pickfordīs or somewhere else. He may have eaten the innards or fed them to the dogs. Point being, we donīt KNOW that he was a trophyhunter, much as it is tempting to think so.

"A light snack on the way to work? I think not."

No? Think Chikatilo.

" I know its obviously not impossible that lech could have been JtR, and if there was any scenario in which we could pin this on him without the whole on the way to work thing, I would be all over him!"

There is more to come, Abby, but not in the immediate future. You will have your go at him, I promise ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz!

I could not resist commenting specialy on this passage of yours:

"Here's a bit of conjecture for you, which should be quite at home on a thread overflowing with it..."

So, the thread is "overflowing with conjecture". If that is what you think, then bear in mind that the choice is one between a man who killed Nichols, was almost caught in the act, and who conned his way out of his predicament, and a scenario where a phantom killer appears the odd minute or two before Lechmere enters the scene, kills Nichols, aborts his eviscerations and flees without being seen or heard by anybody.

I think, Caz, that it is not a question of avoiding conjecture - it is a question of choosing which conjecture you prefer. And I prefer the one where the killer is readily visible, the scenario where I can explain how he managed to get out of the spot he was in.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Abby:

"Just because the murder sites are not on Lechs direct route to work, does not mean he had to alter his path to work to look for victims-he could have gone the same way everytime and met the victims on his regular path and then been led by them to the spots where there bodies were found."

Hallelujah and amen to that!

"its highly unlikely JtR would be hunting/killing on his way to work"

Mmm, I know you think this. But I stnad by my suggestion that he was killing in his comfort zone at an hour that represented the best (and quite probably only) window of time to him.

" He had a tight deadline to get to work and would be sacked for showing up late"

Did he? Do we KNOW this? Do we KNOW that he did not rise fifteen minutes early on his killing mornings? Or thirty? How can we tell? And how sure can we be that he did not have some slack at Pickfordīs, having worked more than two decades there? How do we KNOW that his closest boss would not cover for him - the faithful Pickforder, striving to make ends meet, and with a newborn, probably sickly, child at home?

How can we tell, Abby? I know I canīt.

" After his murders, it more than likely he would want to get back to somewhere private to do whatever he wanted with his goodies, not somewhere public, like work."

How do you know that he did not just throw them away? Statistics? How do you know he did not eat them? Statistics?

"Highly unlikely JtR would be showing up to work with bloodstains, knife and organs without ever being suspected or caught."

Oh, not again! We canīt tell that there was blood, he could have used a basin on his route to work IF he needed to. We donīt know to what extent he was scrutinized at Pickfordīs, do we? I donīt think there was an everyday procedure for checking for blood, Abby!

It WOULD be unusual to kill en route to work. But thatīs it - it would NOT have been in any way impossible, and we know silch about the surrounding circumstances. He may have shared premises with ten others, and he may have had a place of his own.

"He has only one red flag of possibly suspicious behavior"

That, I think, would depend on who does the counting...

The best,
Fisherman

Hello Fish

Mmm, I know you think this. But I stnad by my suggestion that he was killing in his comfort zone at an hour that represented the best (and quite probably only) window of time to him.

Fair enough-I'll buy that.

Did he? Do we KNOW this? Do we KNOW that he did not rise fifteen minutes early on his killing mornings? Or thirty? How can we tell? And how sure can we be that he did not have some slack at Pickfordīs, having worked more than two decades there? How do we KNOW that his closest boss would not cover for him - the faithful Pickforder, striving to make ends meet, and with a newborn, probably sickly, child at home?

He worked their for a while-I am sure he had a normal routine down which would have been questioned by his wife if some days he decided to leave early. I doubt his boss would jeopordize his own job "covering" for a late employee.

How do you know that he did not just throw them away?

Your getting colder Fish. Someone who went through the difficulty of procuring those organs did so with a purpose-not to just throw them away immediately afterwards.

How do you know he did not eat them?

A light snack on the way to work? I think not.

Oh, not again! We canīt tell that there was blood, he could have used a basin on his route to work IF he needed to. We donīt know to what extent he was scrutinized at Pickfordīs, do we? I donīt think there was an everyday procedure for checking for blood, Abby!

Or a sign that said "Leave your bloody organs at the door"!

HeeHee. its all good Fish. I know its obviously not impossible that lech could have been JtR, and if there was any scenario in which we could pin this on him without the whole on the way to work thing, I would be all over him!

[Fisherman]

Right, Caz - Iīll bite:

"Firstly, Paul was in the very best position to judge if there was anything remotely suspect or intimidating about Cross's behaviour, attitude or body language when approaching him and alerting him to Nichols's body. A quiet word with a policeman would have been all it took to get Cross questioned a bit more fully about his role in the affair. If it didn't happen, we are left to presume that Paul believed Cross was as uninvolved as he was himself, and merely a bit put out about the interruption to his journery to work."

I donīt think Paul ever entertained the possibility that his fellow carman was the killer. He swallowed Lechmereīs story, to my mind. But Paul was intimidated by Lechmere just the same! My guess is that Lechmereīs anger of having to abort the organ extraction showed in his face, and that gave Paul an initial scare.

"Secondly, to quote from one of Lechmere's posts: "Cross said he saw no one while walking to Bucks Row until he found Polly’s body". Well he certainly missed a trick if he was the killer. Easiest thing in the world to claim to have seen a man - any man - running away, or at least to have heard retreating footsteps. Why not add a description, for good measure, as some believe Hutchinson did, to send the cops haring off in the wrong direction?"

And the stupidest thing he could do if it turned out that there was a coper behind the coner around which he claimed the bogey man ran - a copper that could testify at the inquest, stating that nobody came past.

Things are sometimes more complex than it seems at the outset. Lechmere risked as little as possible by stating what he did.

"Thirdly, for those who believe Stride's killer was possibly Cross/BS man, he had no problem manhandling her in front of not one but two witnesses, then sent them both packing with "Lipski!" before finishing her off and fleeing into the night. So why not send Paul packing in the same way, before he had the chance to witness anything at all?"

We donīt know who killed Stride, do we? And how would he avoid that Paul picked him out later, giving him away? Moreover, how would he know that the commotion involved would not have Thain, Mizen and Neil asking him questions a minute later?

Once again, the low key approach was the best he could do. Plus he needed Paul!

"I imagine the killer's adrenaline levels would have been through the roof immediately before, during and after each encounter, so I do wonder how he could have managed to go straight on to a hard day's work when he was back down to earth with a bang. Wouldn't most violent serial killers prefer several hours of private 'down' time, to sleep, collect their thoughts, mentally relive what they had just done, admire their trophies, or at least stash them somewhere safe and clean up?"

He DID have some time - fifteen, twenty minutes - to cool off. And we donīt know what possibilities he had to stash things at Pickfordīs, do we? He may even have had a stashing place en route, for all we know!

"The evidence suggests that the killer would already have been fantasising about taking body parts and would have done so if he'd had more time or felt more secure in the location. What was he planning to do with them when he arrived at work? Suggest a name change to Pickfords Organ Removals?"

Have a look at my answer to Abby Normal, Caz!

"Here's a bit of conjecture for you, which should be quite at home on a thread overflowing with it: what if the killer hears Cross coming before he's done all he wants to do, so he pulls the skirts down roughly and ducks into the shadows to observe what happens next. He hopes that Cross will simply pass on by (like Paul would arguably have done), assuming she is just drunk or asleep, or possibly not even noticing her. Will he get a chance to go back and inflict more damage? If her skirts had been left right up and any initial attempts at mutilation on show, he'd almost certainly have been forced to call it a night at that point. Do we know he couldn't have returned for another quick slash or two once Cross and Paul had pushed off?"

Nope. We donīt. And there ARE alternative scenarios - but I donīt buy into much of it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"Just because the murder sites are not on Lechs direct route to work, does not mean he had to alter his path to work to look for victims-he could have gone the same way everytime and met the victims on his regular path and then been led by them to the spots where there bodies were found."

Hallelujah and amen to that!

"its highly unlikely JtR would be hunting/killing on his way to work"

Mmm, I know you think this. But I stnad by my suggestion that he was killing in his comfort zone at an hour that represented the best (and quite probably only) window of time to him.

" He had a tight deadline to get to work and would be sacked for showing up late"

Did he? Do we KNOW this? Do we KNOW that he did not rise fifteen minutes early on his killing mornings? Or thirty? How can we tell? And how sure can we be that he did not have some slack at Pickfordīs, having worked more than two decades there? How do we KNOW that his closest boss would not cover for him - the faithful Pickforder, striving to make ends meet, and with a newborn, probably sickly, child at home?

How can we tell, Abby? I know I canīt.

" After his murders, it more than likely he would want to get back to somewhere private to do whatever he wanted with his goodies, not somewhere public, like work."

How do you know that he did not just throw them away? Statistics? How do you know he did not eat them? Statistics?

"Highly unlikely JtR would be showing up to work with bloodstains, knife and organs without ever being suspected or caught."

Oh, not again! We canīt tell that there was blood, he could have used a basin on his route to work IF he needed to. We donīt know to what extent he was scrutinized at Pickfordīs, do we? I donīt think there was an everyday procedure for checking for blood, Abby!

It WOULD be unusual to kill en route to work. But thatīs it - it would NOT have been in any way impossible, and we know silch about the surrounding circumstances. He may have shared premises with ten others, and he may have had a place of his own.

"He has only one red flag of possibly suspicious behavior"

That, I think, would depend on who does the counting...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"You're replying on very improbable "maybes" to make Cross work as the killer of Chapman, but in all very strong likelihood, he was due at work at the same time every day, and would have been at work when Chapman was killed. As I've observed, carmern are noted for their very early work hours, and any employee not due at work until after 5.00am would have been a very rare creature indeed."

Once again: Lechmere had a record of twenty years of employment. He may well have been in a position to change his working hours at different stages. Once again: He was a carman. In one of the articles on Chapman, the writer notices that there are heaps of cars standing in Hanbury Street. He may of course have killed her AFTER having started work, Ben. We may safely rely on him not spending his working days in Broad Street; when he was "at work", he was on the streets of London!

"I think that's not very likely"

Goes to show how different people are, Ben. I think it is a VERY reasonable thing to suggest.

"There is no evidence that he took that route...ever."

But it was the closest one ... always.

" The fact that he used Hanbury Street is an excellent indication that he was in the habit of using that particular route"

...or an equally excellent indicator that he wanted to check Paul out thoroughly.

" ...it wasn't appreciably slower than the alternative."

Depends on what you appreciate. It would have been a matter of a few minutes at any rate.

" he elaborated on that and observed that the majority of serial killers will murder and/or dispose of their victims in an area that surrounds their base. "

And do you think this was because killers feel an urge to spread their deeds equally in all directions? Or do you think that this was because they worked from an epicenter - their home - that represented a comfort zone to them. Letīs hear it!

" Cross had lived where he did for enough time for anyone to feel sufficiently "comfortable" in the immediate environment"

Oh - do you have a time limit that applies here? One month? Two? Eh? He moved in in May, meaning that he had two, three months before Tabram died.
Do you really propose that these ten weeks or so turned the Doveton Street area into his comfort zone? Yes?
Equally, do you believe that it erased the Ripper killing fields as his comfort zone?
Moreover, do you propose that the Doveton Street area held the same amount of prostitutes as the Ripper area? The same opportunities?
Do you think he was as accustomed to the areas north, south and east of Doveton Street as he was to the grounds where he had spent many years living? Especially taking into account that his working route always took him WEST - that was the only direction in which we know he travelled.
I think you need to reconsider this somewhat.

"According to who - you? "

According to me and anybody who acknowledges the fact that you donīt swop comfort zones like you change socks. In the Ripper area, Lechmere would have known every shop, every doorway, lots of people, every single pub, all the schools and boarding houses and every narrow alley. He would be very much at home there - such a thing does not go away over a period of ten weeks.
Do you disagree?
In Doveton Street, he would be gradually acclimatizing to his new environments, learning as he went along. Please keep in mind that he would spend very long working days at his job - carmen worked very long days, meaning that he had precious little time to get to learn his new surroundings.
Do you disagree?

This is a very good reason to think that Lechmers comfort zone WAS the Ripper area. He spent an hour EACH day walking through it, and we know of no other excursions on his behalf.

"There were opportunities to find prostitutes all over London, and he had a greater chance of procuring them in Stepney, which was just as close to his home. The idea that that Spitalfields was some sort of mecca for all prostitutes has mutated into an annoying factoid, and seemingly very difficult to shift."

But Stepney was not on his working route, was it? Also, he may well have had contacts among the prostitutes in the Ripper territory - he may have been a regular - but arguably not in Stepney. And Stepney - if you recall - would NOT have represented any comfort zone of his. He never lived there, and the streets would not have been as familiar to him. Why would he kill there?

"Absolutely no way."

U-huh. So there is "absolutely no way" that it would be to expect that a killer chooses grounds with which he is thoroughly accustomed when he kills? THAT is VERY interesting, and a whole new alley to me!
Instead, he goes to Stepney and Victoria Park, clairvoyantly realizing the misinterpretation of David Canter a Ripperologist will make 124 years later...?
I find that somewhat ... odd? Is that the word Iīm looking for here: odd? Ben?

" you're the one who introduced "academic efforts" to this topic"

Did I? Did I introduce Canter and suggest that all killers need to find themselves circular killing fields, concentrically shaped around their homes?
If so, I take it all back - it was daft of me. Sorry! (In fact, I could have sworn it was you who did it, but what the heck...)

"Was I wrong to state that you don't believe Stride was a ripper victim? If not, Berner Street is probably irrelevant to the case against Cross."

Is it true then? Am I the one who decides this? How did that happen? How on earth can the relevance of Berner Street to the case against Lechmere hinge on MY assessments?
Surely that is putting too much faith in me, Ben?

Shall I tell you once again how it works? Okay, then:

I think the evidence in the Stride case points more away from a Ripper deed than towards it.

I donīt exclude the possibility that it could have been the Ripper just the same - after all, there are parameters speaking for the Ripper.

I have never stated that I am in any way certain about Stride not being a Ripper victim. What I AM certain about is that the evidence does NOT point to the Ripper in any decisice way.

The added knowledge that Lechmereīs mother and daughter lived at an address to which Berner Street led, means that any rational theorist now has a new factor to weigh in into the Stride murder. It does not change the CRIME SCENE evidence, but when it can be shown that a man who is an immensely strong suspect in the Ripper case had a connection to the murder site ... well, you surely get my drift, donīt you? It is evidence too, see?

I do believe you are trying to wind me up about this, Ben. But I donīt mind. Itīs just that it is a waste of space, since I have already explained this to you.

Did you get it this time? It would facilitate our exchanges in days to come!

" You did a terribly bad and unconvincing job of trying to make it appear useless"

Oh, pardon me if I came across as pointing the Hutchinson bid out as useless. What I DID say that was "nobody in their right minds would be that stubborn and locked onto a useless idea, would they?" It is a general statement ("a" useless idea, not "that" or "the" useless idea), working from the theoretical suggestion that somebody had managed to point out facts that very much diminished the value of the Hutchinson theory.

Now that thatīs been cleared up,

all the best!
Fisherman