Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Tom_Wescott]

Just for the record, I also post under the handles PaulB, Supe, MalcolmX, and Admin.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

OK, just went through some of Lechmere's posts and his English sounds a bit "constructed", for lack of a better word. Possibly not a native speaker? Or maybe his posts were written in haste. Still, can't believe that Fish is pulling a David Radka on us!

[mariab]

The one about Supe I knew already.
But I thought you were posting under Perry Mason and Karen Trenough too.

[Lechmere]

I don’t know why anyone would think I came on this forum with the preconceived intention of ‘fingering’ Lechmere (or should I say Cross) as the number one suspect.
Now we are on the subject of shared identities, I always thought Frau Retro was the same person as Madam Ruby. After all they have never been seen together at the same place.
On the subject of hiding in the shadows, there really was no suitable place in the immediate vicinity of Brown’s Stable yard.
Did Robert Paul feel intimidated by Cross’s approach? Make your own mind up from this:
Evening News 3 September 1888
Robert Paul, a carman, has made the following remarkable statement: He says: It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. 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.(sorry someone else pointed this out).

[curious]

I don’t know why anyone would think I came on this forum with the preconceived intention of ‘fingering’ Lechmere (or should I say Cross) as the number one suspect.

So, how did you arrive at the name for your online persona?

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

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

I still think you're relying on "maybes" that militate very strongly against the likely scenario, which is that Cross was due at work at the same very early time every day, like all carmen. The fact that he had worked there for a considerable length of time does not increase the likelihood of him being permitted to turn up at work considerably later. It is marginally more plausible to surmise that he may have killed Chapman after having started work, but then one has to wonder what he did with his "car" after the murder! Likewise, the reasons you cite to Abby for Cross's supposed slack or late arrivals are obviously remote, outside chances, as you must surely acknowledge. In all overwhelming probability, Cross was at work when somebody else was murdering Annie Chapman.

And do you think this was because killers feel an urge to spread their deeds equally in all directions?

As much as I appreciate your interest in what I "think" causes the phenomenon Canter and others describe, it is essential to focus on what actually happens. Generally, the thinking goes that a killer would venture out to commit murder at a perceived optimum distance from his bolt hole, but in different directions each time to avoid excessive police focus in any of of those murder locations. It's worth nothing, by the way, that the marauder/commuter distinction is based on the crime/disposal locations as they relate to the actual homes of the killers at the times of the offences, and not their past comfort zones. On that subject, I didn't get an answer to my question regarding Cross's pre-Doveton Street residence. I'm not trying to catch you out. I've genuinely forgotten. Where was it again?

Yes, incidentally, a few months residence in a given area is more than enough time for anyone to create a comfort zone, and yes, there would have been ample opportunity to both encounter and procure prostitutes in the area surrounding his home. Please burn or pulp any book or article that tells you the "ripper zone" was the centre of prostitution, because it's nonsense. The fact that his work route took him west does not mean that he was so uncurious and unimaginative as to avoid venturing in other directions. Bear in mind that he lived very close to some major thoroughfares.

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.

But where? Throw me a frickin' bone here (as Dr. Evil would say). I'm genuinely ignorant on that particular subject. Where did Cross live before he moved into Doveton Street? I just hope you're aren't still referring to the area around Berner Street, because that would still make him a "very rare" commuter who had a base south of the southernmost crime scene.

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

There is no more evidence of Cross having contacts with Stepney prostitutes than there is of him having contacts with Spitalfields prostitutes, and we have absolutely no idea how familiar he was with Stepney. Canter's studies related to the proximity of crime scenes to the then-current locations of the perpetrators's homes, not past "comfort zones" from previous residences.

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

I thought so, and you realise that this same evidence doesn't change just because you've recently cultivated an interest in Cross? All those factors that prompted you to argue at length in favour of Stride's non-ripper candidacy - they're still very much in place, presumably; cutaway coats, William Marshall and all?

Finally, you seemed to tell Caz that you didn't "buy into" any scenario that doesn't involve Cross being Jack the Ripper. Can you reassure me that I've misread you there?

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

As disheartening as the prospect of "Fishmere" might be to many of us, I think we can take solace in the fact that they're almost certainly separate entities. If they appear to speak "as one" these days, it may be because they chummed up in Whitechapel recently and aligned themselves more closely than ever with one another's ideas.

- Hey Fisherman, it's Lechmere! Nice to meet you! Isn't that Ben a plonker?

- Oh, a total plonker. Always jabbering on about Hutchinson.

- Don't I know it! But if you want a REALLY suspicious witness, I've got an ace up my sleeve...

- Really? Who?

- This is gonna knock 'em dead on Casebook...

- The suspense is killing me. Who?!?

(Silence)

- Charles Cross.

- F**k off. No way!

- Ohhhh yes sireee....

- I dunno, it's a bit...."out there" somehow, but what the heck, I'll buy it! Do you want to be mates?


Or something along those lines.

As much as they may bother me at times, I've no doubt they're different people.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"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."

To come down on just the one side of the fence and determine never to leave that stance, come what may, would be decidedly IRRATIONAL, Bridewell. The Stride killing involves elements that allow for different interpretations; much speaks for it being a murder perpetrated by an aquaintance of Stride´s, and other things speak for a possible Riper killing.

Over the years, it has been fervently stated that it MUST have been a Ripper killing. It must not, however. And that has been what I have argued - it is NOT a case where the killer can be nobody but the Ripper. Now, Ben tries to use this against me, giving the impression that I have never allowed for Stride being a Ripper killing.
Wrong. I have always said that it MAY well have been, whereas the crime scene evidence has spoken more of an aquaintance deed to me.

But there is more evidence than crime scene evidence! There is also the evidence telling us that Lechmere "found" Nichols, and that he would arguably have passed the vicinity of the Kelly, Tabram and Chapman murder spots at the approximate time they were killed. There are also other details pointing to guilt on Lechmere´s behalf.
Therefore, when it surfaces that he can ALSO be tied to the Berner Street area, this is added evidence that urges us to increase our interest in Lechmere, and ponder the possibility that he killed Stride too.

In a sense, this does not necessarily have to mean that Stride was NOT killed by an aquaintance. If we take all things into account, Lechmere may of course have been BOTH aquainted with Stride AND her killer. Not that I am proposing such a thing as the best scenario - but before one starts to criticize, one may need to take in ALL possibilities!

"An "immensely strong" suspect?"

Yes, I think so. And I have my reasons for doing it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby:

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

So it sounds, and so Paul would have wanted it to sound! It was either that, or confessing that he was very much scared by a man who later seemed to be a stand-up citizen. Stating that would have him look like a coward, and I suspect Paul was a vain busybody who did not like that idea at all.
Compare, if you will, to Schwartz, who first admitted that he had been very scared by the incident in Berner Street, only to later change his testimony by swopping a pipe for a knife - thereby giving himself a lot better reason to scuttle off like a scared rabbit.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

.

Lechmere could be American, but not sure. Probably British.

[/QUOTE]

I think that Lechmere might be a Rastafarian...

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott:

"His name was Cross, people. That's what he WANTED to be called."

... on the morning of the 31:st of August 1888 it surely was! But on all other occasions, he apparently wanted to be called Lechmere. He was born Lechmere, he signed his marriage license Lechmere, he called his children Lechmere etcetera. If he was that opposed to being called Lechmere, Tom, why would he do that?

"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."

I will answer this once and no more: No, we are not one and the same. The signature Lechmere belongs to a British poster, living in London. We have met though, and as far as I can tell, he was not me. I hope that answers your question.

I am not very fond of your suspicion that we would be one and the same, let me add that. I have seen enough of sock puppets out here to be very condemning about such things.

The best, Tom!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I still think you're relying on "maybes" that militate very strongly against the likely scenario, which is that Cross was due at work at the same very early time every day, like all carmen."

... meaning that you keep records of how "all" carmen were treated. And of course, they were all subject to the exact same conditions, no exceptions possible.

"The fact that he had worked there for a considerable length of time does not increase the likelihood of him being permitted to turn up at work considerably later."

This is just ridiculous, Ben. It equals saying that people who have worked for decades at a job will never benefit from that. They will not develop ties with their employers, and they will never be handed any advantages as a recognition of their faithful services.
In today´s world, staying on for many years at the same job is considered daft, but back in them days, it was a very honourable thing to do. And you may rest assured that those who stayed on for decades were regarded as good, reliable resources by their employers and bosses.

But this obvious reality you choose to deny. One has to wonder why?

"It's worth nothing, by the way, that the marauder/commuter distinction is based on the crime/disposal locations as they relate to the actual homes of the killers at the times of the offences, and not their past comfort zones."

Don´t you see by now, Ben, that Canter is useless in the Lechmere context?
-We KNOW that Lechmere was trekking to job at the approximate or exact times the victims were killed.
-We therefore KNOW that if he was the killer, then he killed en route to his job.
-He worked at Pickford´s in Broad Street, meaning that he could only move in one direction, leaving 22 Doveton Street - westwards.
-Ergo, if Lechmere was the killer, and if he killed en route to work, ALL his slayings would occur at points westwards of 22 Doveton Street and eastwards of Broad Street. And whaddayouknow ...!

If we are going to be Canter fundamentalistic about this, we are going to need to ask Lechmere to retrospectively find himself three or four other jobs, situated in other directions than the westward one.

Canter, Ben, does not apply in Lechmere´s case, the reason being that he used his work route, and NOT his home as his "base". And if you must do "a Canter, then single out the two widest away perpetrated killings, Eddowes and Nichols, make your Canter circle with them as the extremes, and then take a look on what you find inside that circle! Exactly: Lechmere´s route to Pickford´s, almost all of it.
If you do it that way, you may cuddle your Canter AND acknowledge that Lechmere killed in his comfort zone.

The rest of your post is uninteresting to me, I´m afraid. Answers have already been given.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Robert Paul was 30 year old local carman, and like all local men who live and work in rough districts he`d be savvy on what to do in particular situations.

He certainly wasn`t a hysterical wall flower like Schwartz.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"Robert Paul was 30 year old local carman, and like all local men who live and work in rough districts he`d be savvy on what to do in particular situations.

He certainly wasn`t a hysterical wall flower like Schwartz."

Then so much the more reason why he would not start to tremble when meeting a lonely man in Buck´s Row, wouldn´t you say? But he still claimed that Lechmere´s presence made him think about assaults and gangs. So this man, familiar as he would be with rough districts, and savvy on what to do - why did he not just grunt "mornin´, chum!" and walk past Lechmere? Why was he consumed by bad forebodings?
To me, that seems every bit as "hysterical" as Schwartz´s fear - and we both know that Schwartz´s was the one guy who had been handed a good reason to be frightened; in his case, the violence and threatening behaviour was there. In Pauls case, it was not - he saw an apparent working man with a sacking apron standing in the middle of the street - and he reacted to that with fear.
Why?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Fisherman

I guess you don`t know how the gangs operated. Paul would know, and I do, from the Old Bailey transcripts.

Staying on the pavement with a man blocking the way would be dangerous as other men would step out of the doorways grabbing the victims arms and legs whilst many hands would be running through his clothes.