Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by DJA 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by packers stem 4 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - by c.d. 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (75 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - (15 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (9 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (7 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (5 posts)
Levy, Jacob: Jacob the Ripper - (5 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #731  
Old 11-19-2018, 12:27 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,548
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
more than likely the witness, like he said at the time of the sighting wouldn't know him if he saw him again.

he probably said that kos may have been the man but I cant swear to it, especially if it might get him accused and hanged falsely.
Or he said something else, or somebody else said something else and Anderson muddled it, or there was some core of truth in it all, but maybe not decisive, or...

It´s La-La Land. Nothing will ever come of it and as a lead in the case it is 100 per cent worthless until more evidence can be added. And let´s face it, that is not going to happen some time soon.

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-19-2018 at 12:33 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #732  
Old 11-19-2018, 12:29 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,548
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
Lech was certainly in the wrong job. What with all this bluff and double bluff to the authorities he should have been a secret agent
Mmmm. And maybe you should be a comedian instead of a poster out here.

Wow. That´s a tough decision, come to think of it.

Which task are you worse at...? I´m not sure I can tell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #733  
Old 11-19-2018, 12:32 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,548
Default

This is a good point in time as I will possibly be able to find to take my leave for now. So that´s what I do.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #734  
Old 11-19-2018, 12:42 PM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
So you are saying that I am of the meaning that the killer interchanged MO and signature? Why would you do that? I have certainly never done such a thing - it is something you have quite simply and unashamedly made up!
You are trying to associate a killer who quietly subdues his victims out at night then mutilates the abdomen with someone who kidnapped women, took them somewhere indoors and then, over who knows how many hours, cuts them into disposable pieces.

Thats interchanging MO and Signature.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #735  
Old 11-19-2018, 01:23 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
You are trying to associate a killer who quietly subdues his victims out at night then mutilates the abdomen with someone who kidnapped women, took them somewhere indoors and then, over who knows how many hours, cuts them into disposable pieces.

Thats interchanging MO and Signature.
hi MR
if your speaking of the ripper and torsoman I disagree.

I doubt torsoman kidnapped his victims-im sure he used a similar ruse to the ripper. As the only one of torsomans victims identified was a prostitute, they probably all were unforunates and like the ripper, probably involved a ruse to get them where he wanted them-in the case of his torso victims-to his chop shop as opposed to his other (ripper victims) that he killed on the streets. probably posing as a client punter of some sort in both.

also, the torso victims were mutilated shortly after the death just like the ripper. both series involved medical or at least anatomical skill and skill with the knife.

the MO is probably the same in terms of procuring the victim-ruse and mutilation shortly after death. with no sign of torture while alive.


the sig, to me anyway, is also the same- post mortem mutilation with both series having cutting up of female bodies and removal of internal and external body parts.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #736  
Old 11-19-2018, 01:32 PM
Batman Batman is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
So you are saying that I am of the meaning that the killer interchanged MO and signature? Why would you do that? I have certainly never done such a thing - it is something you have quite simply and unashamedly made up!
It is okay for people to mix up signature and MO, or even not to know what they mean, but you have made pretty big claims which require big evidence, and yet you have completely muddled this up and still continue to do so.

Quote:
I do not think that cutting the neck (yes, Gareth - neck!) was part of the killers signature. I think it was a practicality. And whether it came forst or second has no bearing on that status as far as I´m concerned.
Mutilating his victim's abdomens is not and never has been, JtRs MO.

MO and signature. Both are accounted for with the C5 except Stride who doesn't show signature. Your model with Nichols can't account for signature. This is because now you have 2 x MOs because you want the mutilation to be MO and the neck cut another MO done after.

Quote:
My suggestion is that Lechmere had cut Nichols abdomen as he noticed Paul approaching, and at that stage he decided to bluff it out. In order to be sure that Nichols was dead and could not communicate, he slit her throat (yes, Gareth, throat - I´m versatile!).
That makes no sense. To make sure she was dead and couldn't communicate. Do you really think she is going to keep quiet as her stomach is being slashed open?

Quote:
In the Chaman case and from that case on, he started out by doing this, having learnt from Bucks Row that it is a useful measure.

In neither case was it a signature.
Mutilating their female attributes is his signature fisherman. You have it as MO in your model for Nichols.

Why?

Because since neither man saw blood you want this explained by Cross just having cut her throat, as both men then feel her to see if she alive, rather than the obvious explanation that it was dark and she already had her throat cut.
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.

Last edited by Batman : 11-19-2018 at 01:40 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #737  
Old 11-19-2018, 02:19 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I do not think that cutting the neck (yes, Gareth - neck!)
No, Fish. The torso killer(s) cut all the way through the victims' necks, whereas the Ripper cut his victims' throats. There's a big difference.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 11-19-2018 at 02:22 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #738  
Old 11-19-2018, 05:47 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,914
Default

The profile of Griffith's as submitted by Fisherman,was taken word by word from the internet.Who compiled it is unknown,but what is certain is that it was not provided by the authorities.More likely the details were supplied by Griffith himself.So the ninety six per cent is from a total of what?Five,Ten,a hundred?
Who knows,but quoting a figure of ninety six is always going to be more appealig,if the real total was a low one.Perhaps one should take heed of a comment that was made of the documentary."Sorry but every time they say murder investigator Andy Griffith I just have to laugh".Maybe someone knew him better than Fisherman.

Now what does Griffith say in the documentary that is incriminating?Nothing.
He does say he was a very interesting person and that he(Cross)would have some real questions to answer but a ten year old schoolboy would be aware of that.The questions of course were answered at the inquest.No answers were found to be either lies or of an incriminating nature.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #739  
Old 11-19-2018, 06:58 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
The profile of Griffith's as submitted by Fisherman,was taken word by word from the internet.Who compiled it is unknown,but what is certain is that it was not provided by the authorities.More likely the details were supplied by Griffith himself.So the ninety six per cent is from a total of what?Five,Ten,a hundred?
Who knows,but quoting a figure of ninety six is always going to be more appealig,if the real total was a low one.Perhaps one should take heed of a comment that was made of the documentary."Sorry but every time they say murder investigator Andy Griffith I just have to laugh".Maybe someone knew him better than Fisherman.

Now what does Griffith say in the documentary that is incriminating?Nothing.
He does say he was a very interesting person and that he(Cross)would have some real questions to answer but a ten year old schoolboy would be aware of that.The questions of course were answered at the inquest.No answers were found to be either lies or of an incriminating nature.
Ah so now a personal attack on griffiths credentials. Desperate and stupid.

Maybe they laughed because it made them think of the other andy grifiths the actor that played a cop on the sitcom.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #740  
Old 11-19-2018, 11:21 PM
Darryl Kenyon Darryl Kenyon is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Mmmm. And maybe you should be a comedian instead of a poster out here.

Wow. That´s a tough decision, come to think of it.

Which task are you worse at...? I´m not sure I can tell.
At least i am not somebody who hijacks threads with his theory instead of trying to stay on topic.

Alright then since you are so good, answer this again but this time in a reasonable way. Why would Cross turn up at Pickfords ten minutes after murdering Kate were there would almost certainly be people there with perhaps some not sure who he is. With almost certainly blood on him, a bloody rag and a Kidney on his day off in the middle of the night, Totally incriminating himself [ just popped in to use the wash basin to clean my hands of blood] Absolutely ridiculous to suggest he would.
Also if he was the murderer why would he say [your words] if Lechmere was the killer, then there was no Mr P Hantom up at the body at all, but IF there had been, Lechmere said that he must have heard him. Again an absolutely ridiculous thing for a killer to say, totally incriminating himself.
I don't care how many experts you quote, they are not always right. Paul Brittan - Colin Stagg, Napper. Common sense tells you he would do neither if the killer.

Last edited by Darryl Kenyon : 11-19-2018 at 11:28 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.