Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Lechmere (or Lechmere's spokesperson Fisherman)"

As far as I know, Lechmere can speak for himself. Eminently so, too.

"Facts and Figures please, or run the risk of being consigned to the ever growing dustbin of time-wasting crackpot theories."

I would appreciate if you reserved the "crackpot" part for theories with no evidence at all, Sally, if you take my meaning.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Fisherman

And appear at inquest?

Surely false details were in order?

Monty

[Fisherman]

Robert:

" I am not familiar with the Cross theory, but I would ask, when did he assume the name "Lechmere"?"

He was born Lechmere, Robert. He did not just "assume" the name.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Hi Fish

By fleeing, he would have had a chance to dump the knife. As it was, he had to walk with Paul all the way to the PC who, if he'd done a quick check on Cross & Paul's pockets, would have found the bloody knife and nabbed Cross.

[Robert]

Thanks Fish, it's coming a bit clearer now.

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Why didn't Cross flee Bucks Row?"

If he was innocent, why would he flee?

If he was not, I think you can appreciate that there may have been potentially many reasons. Do you wish for me to outline some of them?

I could do it the other way around. Letīs take a look at the Chapman murder. If Cadosh heard the murder being perpetrated, it stands to reason that the killer must have heard Cadosh too, opening his backyard door and walking to the loo. And there were holes inbetween the planks of the fence, plus the fence was a low one.

So why did the killer not flee the Hanbury Street backyard?

We are dealing with a killer that was truly audacious, if by reason of lacking wits or of coldbloodedness, we canīt say. But we CAN say that he was a risktaker.

I have outlined a suggestion above, working from the assumption that Cross may have been coldblooded when meeting Paul. If this was so, then he made good his escape in the least fussy manner imaginable.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"By fleeing, he would have had a chance to dump the knife. As it was, he had to walk with Paul all the way to the PC who, if he'd done a quick check on Cross & Paul's pockets, would have found the bloody knife and nabbed Cross."

Yes, thatīs correct. But fleeing always involved the risk of running into a PC or two, and then the game would have been up, no matter if you had thrown the knife away en route - a search would ensue and turn up the weapon, reasonably, and then he would have had "guilty" stamped on his forehead.

As for carrying his weapon on himself, yes, that would involve the risk of the PC they met asking them to show their hands and pockets, but we must remember that the two camen did not approach the PC as witnesses of a Ripper murder - they did so as two working men who had found a woman on the pavement that may well have just been drunk. Quite possibly she was dead, and they mentioned this possibility too, but the reason for that death was never gleaned to Mizen. Once again, people who die on the streets may have had a stroke or heart attack or something such, and why would Mizen think that she had probably had her throat cut and been eviscerated?

When he found out what had happened, he may well have blamed himself for not checking the carmen out, and likewise, if the murder had been perpetrated further into the Ripper scare, he may have stopped the men and been wary of the risks involved not to check them out. But this was early days!
Moreover, he was approached by two men who did not know each other, and who were perhaps very obviously unaquainted. Mizen would reasonably have thought that the two men had found the woman together, thus in a way giving each other an alibi.

My guess si that if Cross/Lechmere banked on not being hauled over the coals of any PC they met, then he did so with very good reason. The PC:s first priority would be to get to the body, I think. After, it would seem, having finished his knocking up business ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Yes, Yes,....

Sally:

"Lechmere (or Lechmere's spokesperson Fisherman)"

As far as I know, Lechmere can speak for himself. Eminently so, too.

"Facts and Figures please, or run the risk of being consigned to the ever growing dustbin of time-wasting crackpot theories."

I would appreciate if you reserved the "crackpot" part for theories with no evidence at all, Sally, if you take my meaning.

The best,
Fisherman

Yawn.

Well, if he can speak for himself, why isn't he then? Seeing as it's his research according to you and not yours. Why are you doing all the talking? And come to that, why not just start a thread to discuss Cross as a suspect? Seems a bit weird. Unless its because the last time it was tried it didn't go so well?

It's a fair enough request when a suspect is proposed - where's the evidence?

Can't think of anything other than ifs and maybes and well he lived in Whitechapel and changed his name a bit?

Well, how about:

Motive? Not sure that hating his stepfather really washes as a reason for slicing up a few women in his spare time - so?

Psychosis? Was he ever incarcerated for mental health problems? Did he ever come to the attention of the police again? Was he ever suspected of, or convicted of, any crime?

For example.

If evidence for any of this exists and is worth considering, fair enough. If it doesn't, and is more the product of wannabe Ripper catching wishful thinking, then I reserve the right to chuck it in the crackpot bin, thanks.

Fish - a minor point, but not everything has to be a conflict. What, you expect people to just accept the premise without question? Not good enough.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

" if he can speak for himself, why isn't he then?"

Maybe he is doing something else, right now. That would be a very good reason, would it not?

" Why are you doing all the talking? "

Whatīs the matter with you, Sally? Why would I not take part in a discussion that fascinates me? And I am emphatically NOT doing all the talking, since Lechmere does participate on the thread, right?

"It's a fair enough request when a suspect is proposed - where's the evidence? "

You just had some of it presented. Whereīs the evidence that ANY other suspect did it?

"Motive?"

Most serial killers are driven by an urge to kill, Sally. Surely you know this? The deed is the motive, not money, not love affairs gone wrong etcetera.

"Psychosis? Was he ever incarcerated for mental health problems? Did he ever come to the attention of the police again? Was he ever suspected of, or convicted of, any crime?"

Did Dennis Rader suffer from psychosis? Was he ever incarcerated for mental health problems? Did he come to the attention of the police during the many first years of his spree? Was he ever suspected of, or convicted of, any crime up til the time they nailed him?

You see, much as we like to create ourselves a Ripper that answers to out preconceived notions, we may be terribly wrong trying to do so.

"If evidence for any of this exists and is worth considering, fair enough."

I have just shown you why it does not NEED to exist. And even if it DID need to exist, how can we be sure that something was not very wrong weith Cross/Lechmere, is spite of his seemingly normal life. I once again say just two words to end THAT discussion, and those words are Dennis and Rader.

The wishful thinking that has made all Ripperologists, more or less, wander off in search of a monster or at least a man with serious psychological issues that were visible on the outside, may simply have been wrong. Maybe we should not start by looking for outwardly showing weirdness or wickedness - we have done so for ages, and it has brought us Ostrog, Issenschmidt, Joseph Silver, le Grand, Kosminsky, Cohen, Kelly, Chapman etc.
Out of this illustrous congregation of candidates, we can tie ONE (1) to a murder spot very roughly, and that is Chapman who we know had connections to George Yard. We can tie none of them to a specific murder place.
What I mean when I say that Cross/Lechmere is perhaps the best bid we have ever seen in this buysiness, is thus not that he answers to some sort of preconceived notion about the killerīs psychology, a notion that we have no idea whether it applied to the real killer or not. It is not THAT kind of evidence that Cross lives up to.
He instead answers up to the demands of HARD evidence, the kind of evidence that any police force would be very thankful to find out about.

If we have a string of killings today, spread along a gegraphical stretch, you can bet your behind, Sally, that the first thing the police will do is t check if they can tie any person to the spoots where the killings were perpetrated. Men like William Bonin, for example, could be tied to his killing spree in this way - it was found out that he had been travelling along the roads where the victims were found.

And back in 1888, four out of five victims were found along the streets where Cross/Lechmere walked to job or to visit his mother. And the only of these four victims who was NOT killed at a time that corresponded to when he went to work, was instead killed at a time that corresponds quite well with the time you may leave your mother after having visited her.
Such a thing would have any police corpse extremely wary of the implications.

We also have the nameswop. If a police corps, following a suspect that answers to this kind of correlation of killing time/killing spot/route to work/visits to places adjoining murder sites, was to find out first of all, that the man they are interested in is using an alias, I donīt see how this would not cause much interest. If, after that, it was added the man in question had actually been spotted at an exact murder site at the exact time the murder was perpetrated, then they would run for their handcuffs and arrest warrants - at least if they were a corps worth their salt.

THIS is the kind of evidence that applies here. I like that kind of evidence much more than I like the kind of evidence that origins in totally uncertain diagnoses about what a killer "must" have been like.

I am glad that you did not lead the hunt for the BTK killer, Sally. If you had been, he would still be roaming the streets, while you searched for a man with a history of psychosises.

And you would never catch him.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"a minor point, but not everything has to be a conflict."

Oh, you mean that I should not have called you thinking crackpot theorizing? Sorry about that, it was not very nice of me. I can see now that it really could cause conflicts!

Thanks for informing me, however, that perhaps not everybody will accept my thinking without questions. That one was new to me! Iīve never been subjected to that reality before here on the boards, not by you nor by anybody else.

Iīll watch out for it, and hope to recognize it if it happens!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Thanks for this thread Fish,

I'm enjoying it. You're making some good arguments.

[Fisherman]

Hi Ruby - long time no see! And thank you!

To be honest, I owe a lot of my insights into Cross to Lechmere, who has done some very interesting research into our carman. But I thoroughly agree that the arguments that can be presented as a result of this, are good, solid arguments.

Iīm very pleased to see you seemingly agree with this. Once again thanks!

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Fish, I am just wondering how the police actually got hold of Cross and Paul's names and addresses. If the woman was not viewed as a crime victim until Cross and Paul had gone off to work, at what point did the police obtain their details?

[Cogidubnus]

This is indeed becoming a very interesting thread...

Dave

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"I am just wondering how the police actually got hold of Cross and Paul's names and addresses. If the woman was not viewed as a crime victim until Cross and Paul had gone off to work, at what point did the police obtain their details?"

Obviously, a woman of whom it is stated that she is lying in the street, drunk or dead, is at the very least a potential crime victim, Robert. Mizen is the only candidate when it comes to who took the menīs information down. They stated that they were late for work, and asked if they could go on, and were allowed to do so. This in itself tells us that no suspicion attached to them from Mizenīs side, and I think one of the keys to this is that they were a pair of innocent-looking, ordinary people who were not running away from a crime site, but instead actively contacting and communicating with the police. That is certainly not the ordinary thing for a killer - or a pair of them - to go about things.
At any rate, Mizen may have thought that the woman was probably just a drunken person and not dead - let alone a murder victim! - but since the possibility ofa crime was at hand, he would perhaps have taken down the name with a feeling of "just in case". But that "just in case" would not have included any suspicion that the carmen - who reported it to him in spite of them being late for work; good, reliable citizens! - were a couple of killers on the loose.

The best,
Fisherman