The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[The Good Michael]

Oh, but it did! Giving the police false names and lying to them, coupled with being found alone with a murder victim is just as mundane, logical and easy to read as it always was. Having had reason to be at murder sites is more of the same; very basic, very mundane, nothing out of the normal for a killer who tries to evade getting caught.

So much as it would be nice, I really donīt think it should award me any title of super-sleuth. Iīm more inclined to award another title altogether to those who cannot see even these simple and commonplace indications...

Show me that he was found alone with a murder victim. After that, show me where the witness reports are placing someone named Cross or Lechmere at another site. Then, show me where the police reports say that Cross lied. Oh and while you're at it, find me some other examples of a legitimate stepson using his father's name while giving his real family address, to evade getting caught...for anything... a parking ticket. I don't need murder here...I'll take chewing gum under the desk top as an offense. Produce any of this stuff or you're just another hack with another suspect. Paul is a better choice anyway because he at least avoided testifying for a few weeks. Now there's an evader.

Mike

[Robert]

Like I said: Poppycock. And to think that you are throwing this very odd suggestion forward without having any knowledge at all that he ever used Cross otherwise! Plus you KNOW that he ALWAYS signed himself Lechmere. Why would he not have begged all other authoritities too to have them sign him as Cross? Why just the police? Why did he feel this urge then and not otherwise when he was asked for his name?

Please tell me that you CAN see the implications, Robert!

I'm afraid I can't Fish. I am still waiting for you to prove what they are.


Mmmm. Or Swiggins. Or Donut. Or Poppycock - if he felt like it, and claimed that he was called by any of these names, then he was in his full right to call himself that with the police too, right?

Was his stepfather called Swiggins, or Donut, or Poppycock, Fish?



Then why is it that Andy Griffiths, a seasoned murder investigator, does not recognize this? Why does he go on about how the carman was dutybound to give his REAL name?

It's a bit rich to expect me to conduct a discussion with Andy Griffiths at several distances removed.



They would have asked him "So which name is your real name, Sir? Which one are you registered by?"

And then he would have said "Lechmere" or "Cross".

Or he might have answered, if he were a logician, ' "Lechmere" or "Cross".'
That's because he might never have seen his birth certificate. He might even not have known if his birth was registered - in the early days of civil registration births sometimes weren't. The police might have been able to access his birth cert during the weekend - I don't know. If according to your scenario he went to the police on Sunday, it would have been a bit of a stretch to find the cert in time to have him in the witness box under his 'real' name by Monday. But the bottom line is, I don't have to provide examples of the police letting a man 'choose' his surname, Fish. YOU have to prove that they never did this.

[Fisherman]

The Good Michael:

Show me that he was found alone with a murder victim.

Read the inquest reports. If you havenīt, you should.

After that, show me where the witness reports are placing someone named Cross or Lechmere at another site.

Who says they did...?

Then, show me where the police reports say that Cross lied.

Who says they did?

Oh and while you're at it, find me some other examples of a legitimate stepson using his father's name while giving his real family address, to evade getting caught...for anything... a parking ticket.

I donīt have to. I only have to point to the correlation between false names and crime.

Produce any of this stuff or you're just another hack with another suspect.

No, I am not. My suspect is the only suspect that can be placed alone close by a freshly killed Ripper victim, plus I can prove that he gave the police another name than his real one, plus I can prove that his logical working treks would take him close to four murder sites close in time to the killings, etcetera, etcetera.

That is far from being "just another suspect" - and people far better fit to make the call than you are have acknowledged that.

Paul is a better choice anyway because he at least avoided testifying for a few weeks. Now there's an evader.

Paul is a really bad choice. And you are not much of a sleuth - and curiously eager to flaunt it.

And YOU call ME blinded!

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Hi Fish

Of course, Paul could be a really bad choice and still be a better choice,

But can I take it that you don't believe that Crossmere would have tried to frame Paul by carrying out the Hanbury St murder, simply because Crossmere couldn't possibly have been so stupid as to expect the police to believe that Paul killed Nichols?

[Fisherman]

Robert: Hi Fish

Of course, Paul could be a really bad choice and still be a better choice,

Actually no, he could not.

But can I take it that you don't believe that Crossmere would have tried to frame Paul by carrying out the Hanbury St murder, simply because Crossmere couldn't possibly have been so stupid as to expect the police to believe that Paul killed Nichols?

You donīt seem to need my input to decide what I think otherwise, Robert, so why this sudden urge?

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

I do read your stuff, Fish.

The reason I asked you about the framing, is I wanted to see if you agreed with Ed.

[Varqm]

Fisherman:

* Varqm: Most people would do something that will help if confronted with a dying person.My opinion is everything that Cross did was normal.

Like not helping to prop her up and try and revive her, saying "I wonīt touch her"? for example?


-- He did somehing of help by at least finding a policeman. What I mean is to get involved in the
first place. He could have ignored the body. And a lot of people dont want to touch a seemingly dead body,period.That was normal.It does not point to guilt in anyway.

*Like a lot people they dont want anything to do with the police and some becomes uneasy when dealing with them.He probably at some point thought about them as a nuisance.

So he took the risk to give the police the wrong name, in spite of the future very dire trouble that could get him into? He gathered that giving them his adress so that he knew that they could come knocking, it was a splendid idea to lie about his identity?

-- That does not mean anything.Some people like to use different names. Maybe a split-second decision.It was not a risk at all.
A lot of people dont want to get involved,partly shown by Cross by not touching the body and won't even bother thinking too much about it.Put it in another perspective what did the police do to help them put food in the table lately.Why would they spend too much time with them.
That was normal.They want to get on with their lives.




*Lechmere can be knit to the Nichols murder by having been found alone standing close by the victim.

-- People who report dead bodies are/were at some point near the body.Almost all of them were not the murderer,at least from what I read..

*In addition, we have logical reasons to put him on all the other murder spots too.

-- It's logical to assume a lot of locals who lived and worked within Spitalfields/Whitechapel
can be tied to the murder spots.

*If not, then you shall have to tell me what YOU think makes a suspect in this case. Being a Jew? Knowing about slaughtery? Having been violent at some stage?

-- I do not know. All that springs to mind is the ripper was good with knives, was seen by witnesses before the Chapman and Eddowes and it did not bother him,he stayed killing in Whitechapel even after reinforcements and press reports,and he passed Goulston St. after the Eddowes murder.

[Fisherman]

I do read your stuff, Fish.

The reason I asked you about the framing, is I wanted to see if you agreed with Ed.

Iīll get you halfways: I donīt agree with you that it would be stupid of the police to think that Paul could have been somehow involved in the Nichols murder. He was in place, and his movements before his stumbling over Lechmere were unaccounted for.

The more interesting thing is how Lechmereīs actions could be psychologically accounted for. Is it possible that a psychopath killer would try and govern the policeīs actions, so as to deflect guilt from himself and throw it upon a man who had hindered him to eviscerate?

That question answers itself.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Varqm:

He did somehing of help by at least finding a policeman.

He had to, unless he wanted to stay with the body himself as Paul set off to get that PC. He would not have been able to leave the scene without attracting attention to his person, he had the weapon on him, he knew that Paul had found him alone with the body.
A very bad option therefore. He simply had to leave with Paul on that PC quest.
But as he got a sort of alibi (two man walking together was not what the police would be looking for) and since it gave him an option to find out who Paul was and what he had seen, it was a very useful turnout of events for Lechmere.

What I mean is to get involved in the first place. He could have ignored the body.

Could he have done that if he was the killer and had decided that fleeing was not an option? I donīt think so.

And a lot of people dont want to touch a seemingly dead body, period.That was normal.

He had already touched the body. He had felt the face and hands for warmth. So if he was unwilling to touch a seemingly dead body, it was something that struck him after already having done just that.

It does not point to guilt in anyway.

Yes it does, if he was the killer. In such a case, he would need to play along in the touchy-felly charade, but he would be very unwilling to disclose that she had had her head nearly cut off. The total anomaly of willingly touching the body, only to then go "I wonīt touch her" begs an explanation.

That does not mean anything.Some people like to use different names.

Yes. So we have to turn to the signatures - did he change names on them? No, he did not, he conssitently signed them Lechmere. But NOT when speaking to the police after having been found alone by a freshly killed victim. If that does not ring any bells with you, then you are dealing with the wrong hobby!

Maybe a split-second decision.It was not a risk at all.

Of course it was a risk! Do you for one second imagine that the police - if they found out that they had been lied to about the name - would go "Well, people do that all the time, so thatīs nothing sinister at all. Letīs not even ask him about it, letīs just use that other name he gave us".
Such a suggestion would never even enter my mind. I would be very sure that the police would get suspicious if they had known. They are payed for it.

A lot of people dont want to get involved,partly shown by Cross by not touching the body and won't even bother thinking too much about it.

True - you think far too little about it.

Put it in another perspective what did the police do to help them put food in the table lately.Why would they spend too much time with them.
That was normal.They want to get on with their lives.

And how would claiming that he was named Cross help him with that? If he said Lechmere and the police checked him, they would go "Heīs clean". If they had checked the Cross name, they would go "Oh-oh, hereīs a blatant liar".

Which of the opportunitites do you think would help him to go on with his life, unbothered by the police?

People who report dead bodies are/were at some point near the body.Almost all of them were not the murderer,at least from what I read..

Of all the daft reasonings often given, this is the one I dislike the most. You leave out the particulars. You shouldnīt.
Nichols was found STILL BLEEDING. If the killer was somebody else than Lechmere, and if Lechmere found the body at approximately 3.45, then the true killer must have left the street before Lechmere turned into it. That means that he left no later than 3.43. If the cut to the neck came first, then he could not have dealt it any later than around 3.42.
If Paul came up to the body at 3.46, then the carmen found Mizen at around 3.50. Paul said the whole thing took four minutes. Speaking to Mizen and Mizen finishing his knocking up business will have taken around a minute. Then it was 3.51.
Then Mizen went to Bucks Row, which would have taken him around two minutes, taking us to 3.53.

If we are on the money here, then eleven minutes - at the very least! - will now have passed since Nichols had her neck cut. And she is STILL bleeding! Blood is running from the wound to her neck.

Is that realistic? And we donīt know for how long she went on bleeding after Mizen saw her.

You see, this is how we must qualify things before we go "somebody had to find her". And please note that the man who "found" her, then goes on to conceal his true identity from the police. Plus he apparently cons Mizen to get past him, soemthing that he woulad have desperately needed to if he had the weapon stashed on his person.

Finally, regardless of how many people who find victims are their killers, it nevertheless applies that standard procedure for the police is to check out two categories of people in a murder case: spouses and people found at the murder site. Each and every such person needs to be cleared. In Lechmereīs case, the only reason to clear him would be his own story - that, as far as we can tell today, could not be checked out.

It's logical to assume a lot of locals who lived and worked within Spitalfields/Whitechapel can be tied to the murder spots.

Itīs another thing to be proven to have been alone with a victim at a spot, at an hour of the night when the fewest people were moving on the streets as per Lechmere, Paul and Neil and the other PC:s and the watchmen. Take in ALL the context before going on about how many people lived in the area.

I do not know. All that springs to mind is the ripper was good with knives, was seen by witnesses before the Chapman and Eddowes and it did not bother him,he stayed killing in Whitechapel even after reinforcements and press reports,and he passed Goulston St. after the Eddowes murder.

Some say it was very crude knifework, some say it wasnīt. It canīt be proven either way.

Some believe in Long and Lawende having seen the killer, some donīt. It canīt be proven either way. Personally, I would discount Long.

Technically, all we know is that the rag passed Goulston Street. Reasonably, it was in the hands of the Ripper, but it is actually not a proven thing. I believe it was so, but for the record, letīs not get too triggerhappy.

As I said before, the one true pointer we can use when deciding who is a suspect - or a good suspect - is to see if their cases would stand up in court. We have a barrister telling us that yes, Lechmereīs case would be a case fit to place before a jury.

How many other suspects can you identify where a barrister would say that? A hundred? Ten? Five? Two? One?

Or none at all?

How about Kosminski? Bury? Hutchinson? Druitt? Lewis Carroll? Van Gogh? Jacob Levy? Tumblety?

Would a barrister say "Wow, thereīs actually enough in it to warrant a trial" when it comes to these men?

It is all very easy - and completely legitimate - to say "Nah, I donīt think it was him".

To say that Lechmere is not a suspect is not legitimate. He is not only a suspect, he is the best one by a country mile.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

You see, this is how we must qualify things before we go "somebody had to find her". And please note that the man who "found" her, then goes on to conceal his true identity from the police. Plus he apparently cons Mizen to get past him, soemthing that he woulad have desperately needed to if he had the weapon stashed on his person.

Let me ask this before I pursue this line of thought: If I could bring forth evidence in the form of Victorian laws and customs regarding children adopting a stepfather's surname when the mother keeps her old one, would that be something of interest to this suspect concept? Let's say, as an example, that the children had to keep the surname of the original father if the mother didn't alter hers. What if, legally, the children were not allowed to take the new father's name in this case because...they are children? Yet, these same children could have loved and spent many years with the new father, and learned a lot from him, and identified with him more than with mother, but gosh darn it, couldn't legally take his name. If (skipping the last part) I could find evidence like this, what would you think (he asked him knowingly)?

Here's a taste, a contemporary man who used his stepfather's stage name, but never legally changed it. Now it isn't the same situation, but it shows that people used two names in the LVP. So did his stepfather. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Leno

Mike

[Robert]

Thanks for stating your position, Fish. I myself do think that the police would have been stupid to suspect Paul (with the exception of Crossmere and Paul acting together). So what the attempt to frame Paul for Chapman would tell me about Crossmere's state of mind is, that Crossmere was a birdbrain. This contrasts markedly with your view of his behaviour on 31st where, according to you, he acts with quite alarming presence of mind to extricate himself from disaster.

[Scott Nelson]

..still going. Still good stuff. Let's keep this debate going. I like the Cross implicates Paul aspect, even though it's a long-shot. I wouldn't dare attempt any detailed analysis of the numerous posts that have been made, though.

[The Good Michael]

..still going. Still good stuff. Let's keep this debate going. I like the Cross implicates Paul aspect, even though it's a long-shot. I wouldn't dare attempt any detailed analysis of the numerous posts that have been made, though.

Scott, you could do the suspectology thing and choose the posts you want to use.

Mike

[pinkmoon]

Any idea why cross stopped killing after the murder of Mary Kelly as he went on to live for quite a few years after her murder I think this is an important question which needs answering.

[Robert]

Pink, they're looking at the possibility that he did not stop.