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:
Mary Ann Nichols: What Direction Was Polly Travelling When She Was Killed? - by Simon Wood 32 minutes ago.
Abberline, Inspector Frederick: Hinting at something? - by c.d. 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by MrBarnett 4 hours ago.
Mary Ann Nichols: What Direction Was Polly Travelling When She Was Killed? - by DJA 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by MrBarnett 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by GUT 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (53 posts)
Mary Ann Nichols: What Direction Was Polly Travelling When She Was Killed? - (11 posts)
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): special k and George yard - (4 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - (3 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (2 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (2 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
  #761  
Old 09-10-2018, 05:38 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Too dumb to deserve an answer, Caz. Try again. Or better still, donīt.
Hold on... just want to make sure I get it right... Is THIS an example of how we debate? Again, just want to makes sure I follow your rules of engagement.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #762  
Old 09-10-2018, 05:44 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
So you reason that the name swap is the major argument for Lechmere as Nicholsī killer?

You really have not grasped much, have you?
Of course, as you well know, Elamarna is completely correct here. Everything springs from this "name swap" idea. As many have said here before, it's interesting... until you look further and realize it's not. There is, quite simply, nothing else. Nothing factual, that is to say. Nothing that's not some interpretation of someone's actions and words viewed the the prism of a "false name" was given because the person giving said "false name" killed Polly Nichols. Without this supposition, your suspect becomes what he his and always has been: a man who found a body on his way to work.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #763  
Old 09-10-2018, 06:13 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Perhaps because, in Cross's case, the geographical pattern is that he lived nearly a mile away from the easternmost victim (Nichols), and that subsequent murders occurred further away still. Attempts to fit the murders with Cross's "work-trek" (or mummy's address) become increasingly tenuous from Chapman onwards, with the only undisputed correlation having been in Bucks Row - which is by no means proven as the place where Nichols actually picked up her killer (or vice versa).

In terms of geographical profiling, a killer resident in the heart of Spitalfields fits better with the distribution of murders than one who lived in Doveton Street, Bethnal Green.
I agree Sam. Here's an interesting article, one you've likely read, that discusses this topic:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...d-experts.html

As well this issue was discussed last year:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...d-experts.html

When I visited London last year I was struck by how Goulston Street seemed quite central to the murder sites of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddows, Kelly. I took a few measurements and found that was indeed the case. I can't locate those posts or my notes. I'll keep looking because I think this is a key point/topic.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #764  
Old 09-10-2018, 06:27 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
I agree Sam. Here's an interesting article, one you've likely read, that discusses this topic:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...d-experts.html

As well this issue was discussed last year:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...d-experts.html

When I visited London last year I was struck by how Goulston Street seemed quite central to the murder sites of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddows, Kelly. I took a few measurements and found that was indeed the case. I can't locate those posts or my notes. I'll keep looking because I think this is a key point/topic.
I posted this last year. I thought it interesting and in line with your thoughts, Sam.

If we - just for fun - consider Tabram victim #1 and - also just for fun - believe that "Jack" killed his first victim close to "home". Perhaps we go so far as to imagine that he knew Tabram by sight and/or reputation if not by name. An interesting narrative can be imagined.

A near square can be drawn in mapping Buck's Row, 29 Hanbury Street, Berner Street, Mitre Square, and Miller's Court, with George Yard Buildings located very near the center of that square. As I said, the entrance to Wentworth Model Dwellings in Goulston Street is about a 5-wood (800 feet) from the spot where Tabram was killed. I find it interesting (and perhaps significant) that one can map this perimeter, and that two relevant sites (a third if we believe Smith was a victim and include the spot on which she was attacked) can found within it: George Yard, near it's center, and Goulston Street, 800 feet to the west.

Perhaps the proximity of Eddowes' apron in Goulston Street may indicate it was left by her killer as he made his way home, to somewhere near (or in) George Yard which was, as I mentioned, only 800 feet from the spot upon which the apron was found. Did he live in Goulston Street (perhaps IN Wentworth Model Dwellings)?

Who knows? But, as I say, one can imagine. If only for fun.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #765  
Old 09-10-2018, 06:57 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
There is no "Why Lechmere was guilty" list. There is a "Why it seems very probable that Lechmere was guilty" list. And the things you mentioned very much belong there.

What would you have me do? Say that I think that he was guilty and then deny saying why I think so...?
No....to stop clutching at straws.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #766  
Old 09-10-2018, 08:01 AM
FrankO FrankO is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 830
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I donīt suggest that Lechmere contacted the police to play games, though, Frank. I suggest that he did it to save his behind - but that he may actually have enjoyed doing so.
Sorry if I was unclear, Christer. I was talking about the situation where Lechmere waited for Paul, not about him contacting the police.. You suggested that he would be (more) inclined to play games if he heard Paul entering Buck's Row (because he would have had more time to split).

Take care,
Frank
__________________
"You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #767  
Old 09-10-2018, 08:55 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankO View Post
Sorry if I was unclear, Christer. I was talking about the situation where Lechmere waited for Paul, not about him contacting the police.. You suggested that he would be (more) inclined to play games if he heard Paul entering Buck's Row (because he would have had more time to split).

Take care,
Frank
This touches upon an aspect of the Lechmere theory that I continue to find problematic, and it ties in with Herlock's discussion around Nichols' clothing discussed in this thread, as well.

I don't think that anyone disputes that Cross/Lechmere was near Nichols' body in Buck's Row at the time Paul entered, walking toward the spots upon which Nichols lay and Cross/Lechmere stood. Those who believe Cross/Lechmere her killer believe he'd killed her and was mutilating her. Those who do not believe he was standing close by, realized she was not a "tarpaulin" and was, in fact, a woman... and waited for Paul to arrive where he was.

Exploring this scenario from the standpoint that Cross/Lechmere HAD just killed Nichols, I find what's proposed to have happened next somewhat incredible. The theory represents that Cross/Lechmere undertook a series of actions in order to not be caught. Leaving aside the fact that, as Christer states, "he may have enjoyed" it, his primary objective was to get away with his crime so that he could commit others, not be killed, etc. I don't think that's controversial and can be agreed upon by both those supportive and non-supportive of him as Jack the Ripper.

Now, in order to get away with this crime, it's suggested that Cross/Lechmere covered Nichols' wounds to some extent, stood near her body, and awaited Paul's arrival. This may seem plausible if Cross/Lechmere were trapped on that spot. Yet, we can be reasonably certain, I think, that he was not trapped. He could have chosen to simply walk away toward Baker's Row in the direction that he and Paul would ultimately head together, or toward Paul, passing him before he (Paul) reached Nichols. Enabling him to then choose from two options: Should Paul reach the body and "raise the alarm" he could then walk/run away or, should he wish play out a bluff (which it's suggested he enjoyed), return to Nichols' body and Paul... and play things out similarly to how they've been alleged claiming he'd not seen the body or that he'd assumed it was another drunk on the pavement.

We know also that it was very dark in Buck's Row. Neil tells us he was only able to see Nichols' wounds with the aid of his lamp: "It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east....Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat."

Yet, in this darkness, with two directions in which to walk into the darkness, not only did Cross/Lechmere remain on the spot, he refused to allow Paul to walk past him WITHOUT ALERTING HIM to the fact that a woman was lying on the pavement. Paul's statement in Lloyd's: "The man (Cross/Lechmere), however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." Paul says more in his inquest testimony, stating that he tried to avoid contact with Cross/Lechmere: "As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway."

As we know, Cross/Lechmere then inspected the body with Paul, remained with Paul on their errand to find a PC, informed the PC (Mizen) that a woman was lying in Buck's Row (either with a PC in Buck's Row or not, this is agreed upon by all) either dead (as stated by Paul and Cross/Lechmere) or not dead (Mizen). And after, remembering that the primary objective was to get away with his crime, he turned up at the inquest the following Monday even though he'd not been asked or provided a name to Mizen on the night of the murder and had been allowed to leave with without a question from Mizen and with no description of him had been included in any published reports.

I know what Christer's contentions are around these circumstances. I've just been unable to find them credible... thus far.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #768  
Old 09-10-2018, 09:45 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
He did not have to go to the top of the cellar steps to look down, as per his mother - he could see the lock from the top of the stairs leading into the house hall.

The DN also says that Richardson claimed about the visit to the stairs: "The Witness-No, sir; it was shut. So was the back door. I opened it and sat on the back steps to cut a piece of leather off my boot."

On the back step. Would that not be the TOP steps?

Plus we have the statement: (Coroner) -Did you go into the yard at all?
(Richardson) -Not at all, sir.
(Coroner) -I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?
(Richardson) -Yes; but you don't need to go into the yard to see that. You can see the padlock of the cellar door from the back door steps.

Donīt you think that clinches the matter, Joshua? Richardson didnīt stand on top of the cellar steps, as far as I can tell. And he may have sat on the "back steps"!

Any which way we cut this, I cannot for the life of me see that there can be any certainty at all either way. He must certainly not have seen Chapman. It is not written in stone or anything even close to it.
Hi Fish,

I'm still gamely trying to catch up with all the posts on this thread, so someone may already have addressed the above.

If Richardson could see, in the darkness of 4.45am, if a padlock was on the cellar door securely, from his position at the top of the stairs, where Davies was when he later saw a whacking great corpse immediately upon opening the door, I fail to see how Richardson could have failed to see the same sight, had Chapman been there at that earlier time.

In short, Richardson would have had to be wildly out in his timing, or lying - for some odd reason - about having taken a knife [?!] to his boot so very close to the scene of this murder by knife. He knew precisely where Davies had seen the body, and also precisely where he was putting himself in relation to it, so he'd also have known for certain whether he could have missed it or not, and would have been very unwise to tell an obvious lie about this.

If Richardson did see the body, but pretended he didn't, why include the boot cutting in his story? If he didn't see the body for whatever reason, his best bet would still have been to leave out the boot cutting operation. He was leaving himself wide open by claiming he couldn't have missed the woman, and therefore she wasn't there at 4.45am, and with nothing apparently to gain. In the event that other evidence - including, but not restricted to the opinion of Dr Phillips - directly contradicted his account and had been accepted, he could have found himself in the boots Lechmere is now being squeezed into.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 09-10-2018 at 09:48 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #769  
Old 09-10-2018, 10:11 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,812
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankO View Post
Sorry if I was unclear, Christer. I was talking about the situation where Lechmere waited for Paul, not about him contacting the police.. You suggested that he would be (more) inclined to play games if he heard Paul entering Buck's Row (because he would have had more time to split).

Take care,
Frank
I see it as a toss-up, Frank, for the simple reason that I do not know when Lechmere DID hear Paul. The closer he was, the lesser the possible inclusion of welcoming an opportunity to play games.
I donīt think it would be wise to paint myself into a corner, and so I keep the door open for more than one possibility.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #770  
Old 09-10-2018, 10:16 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,812
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
While i am prepared of course to accept that some may have been beyond your control, as the lead participant and the one put forward as the "man with the theory", there is a high degree of collective responsibility for all that is said and portrayed in the production.

The inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the Documentary are certainly not minor, a look at the comments on Facebook after every repeat showing, highlight that people take what is said as being major points in the case.

Why should i be ashamed of truth?


Steve
If you think that what people out here say represents a fair judgment, then think again. Whoa!

As for the "high degree of collective responsibility, I take full repsonsibility for what I say in the docu and the film team has to take full responsibility for what THEY say. I asked to get a preview before the docu was aired, but I never got to do that.

I have taken full responsibility for what I should take full responsibility for, and what you think falls in my domain without me having had any influence over it is quite frankly of no consequence to me. To you, however, trying desperately to fault me, I can see the allure.

Enough quibbled over this.
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 10:39 PM.


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