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:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Nature of Evidence - by Elamarna 12 minutes ago.
"The Royal Conspiracy": Annie and Alice Crook photographs. - by GUT 41 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Lechmere Triple Event - by Henry Flower 49 minutes ago.
"The Royal Conspiracy": Annie and Alice Crook photographs. - by Henry Flower 57 minutes ago.
"The Royal Conspiracy": Annie and Alice Crook photographs. - by Simon Wood 7 hours ago.
"The Royal Conspiracy": Annie and Alice Crook photographs. - by harry 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Non-Fiction: Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood - (17 posts)
Audio -- Visual: Exorcist and JTR - (8 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Lechmere Triple Event - (7 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Nature of Evidence - (7 posts)
"The Royal Conspiracy": Annie and Alice Crook photographs. - (5 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (1 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
  #1  
Old 10-16-2015, 12:49 PM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 937
Default Lechmere's Consciousness of Guilt

John Henry Wigmore was twenty-five years old in 1888. One wonders what he would have made of an accusation made against Charles Lechmere as "Jack the Ripper".

Wigmore, as many of you likely know, was an American legal scholar, widely considered a pioneer in the field of evidentiary law. In 1904 he published his 'Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law'. In it he writes:

"Flight from justice, and its analogous conduct, have always been deemed indication of a consciousness of guilt. The wicked flee, even when no man pursueth; and the righteous are as bold as a lion."

We should note, with respect to Lechmere, that he did not attempt flight. He waited for and spoke to a man (Robert Paul) whose approach he heard, in the dark, from forty yards off.

Flight is as important today as it was in Old Testament times.

After asking Mr. Paul to "come and see" the woman (Polly Nichols) lying on the pavement in Buck's Row he did not attemt to go in any direction other than direction in which Paul himself was going. Again, he does not attempt to flee. Instead he and Paul resolve to continue on together, on an errand: To find a police officer.

A criminal act leaves usually on the mind a deep trace, in the shape of a consciousness of guilt, and from this consciousness of guilt we may argue to the doing of the deed by the bearer of the trace."

Lechmere remained in Paul's company until they'd found a policeman (Jonas Mizen). They informed him that a woman was lying in Buck's Row. They parted company and continued on to work.


Again....

"Flight from justice, and its analogous conduct, have always been deemed indication of a consciousness of guilt. The wicked flee, even when no man pursueth; and the righteous are as bold as a lion."

Seventy-two hours after he found Nichols' body, the heretofore unknown, unnamed, unidentified Mr. Lechmere appeared, uncompelled and voluntarily at the inquest into her death.

Mr. Lechmere's "flight from justice" has him waiting for a man approaching in the distance, asking him to come and see a woman lying on the pavement, going with that man in search of police officer to inform, and appearing voluntarily to testify at her inquest. His "flight" from justice has him submitting himself to its prosects no less than three times.

Last edited by Patrick S : 10-16-2015 at 01:02 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-16-2015, 01:19 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,115
Default

Yes, but Lechmere-Cross stood at the crime scene firm as a rock. He wasnīt afraid to approach the murder scene. His stepfather had been a policeman and Lechmere-Cross knew what to do. He made contact with the police in the street and he went to the inquest to testify. He even gave a critical opinion to Mizen when he stated that the woman could be drunk or dead. He acted rationally. Perhaps he even thought that his own statement was of some importance. The "Whitechapel murderer" was thought to have taken the life of his third victim in those days and Lechmere-Cross might have thought he could be of some help.

Regards Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-16-2015, 01:19 PM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 937
Default

I want to make another point here with repsect to Lechmere's consciousness of guilt.

As I've said elsewhere, this "Cross" business must be considered in context. We have no case files; we don't know if he gave both names and the papers only printed "Cross" (they couldn't spell "Paul" or "Thain" or even get Lechmere's first name right, so it is possible they chose the path of least reisistence as the chances of the getting "Lechmere" right were likely remote), we don't know if there was some other reason he gave that name.

However, I'd be as dishonest as Christer if I were to pretend that providing a "false name" is not potential evidence of consciousness of guilt. So, let's consider it.

He gave the name "Cross". It was a name he had a connection to. He was identified as such by his stepfather (Thomas Cross) in a census years before, when he was 11. But, let's say it was "false". He also gave his actual first name. His actual middle name. His correct, current address. His genuine place of employment. Thus, this is an odd attempt at deception.

It would seem that by voluntarily submitting himself to questioning, albeit under the name "Cross" as opposed to "Lechmere" he was - if he were the killer - simply ensuring that he would be executed as Charles Allen Cross of Doveton Street, Bethnal Green, Carman for Pickfords as opposed to Charles Allen Lechmere of Doveton Street, Bethnal Green, Carman for Pickfords.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-16-2015, 01:21 PM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Yes, but Lechmere-Cross stood at the crime scene firm as a rock. He wasnīt afraid to approach the murder scene. His stepfather had been a policeman and Lechmere-Cross knew what to do. He made contact with the police in the street and he went to the inquest to testify. He even gave a critical opinion to Mizen when he said the woman could be drunk or dead. He acted rationally. Perhaps he even thought that his own statement was of some importance. The "Whitechapel murderer" was thought to have taken the life of his third victim in those days and Lechmere-Cross might have thought he could be of some help.

Regards Pierre
I'm sorry...you said "but", yet you seem to agree? Am I missing something?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-18-2015, 10:51 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,115
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
I'm sorry...you said "but", yet you seem to agree? Am I missing something?
Well, I mean anyone who didnīt like to get into trouble could actually have wanted to flee from being close to a crime scene. But not L-C obviously.

Regards Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-18-2015, 04:04 PM
Mayerling Mayerling is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Flushing, New York
Posts: 2,675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
John Henry Wigmore was twenty-five years old in 1888. One wonders what he would have made of an accusation made against Charles Lechmere as "Jack the Ripper".

Wigmore, as many of you likely know, was an American legal scholar, widely considered a pioneer in the field of evidentiary law. In 1904 he published his 'Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law'. In it he writes:

"Flight from justice, and its analogous conduct, have always been deemed indication of a consciousness of guilt. The wicked flee, even when no man pursueth; and the righteous are as bold as a lion."

We should note, with respect to Lechmere, that he did not attempt flight. He waited for and spoke to a man (Robert Paul) whose approach he heard, in the dark, from forty yards off.

Flight is as important today as it was in Old Testament times.

After asking Mr. Paul to "come and see" the woman (Polly Nichols) lying on the pavement in Buck's Row he did not attemt to go in any direction other than direction in which Paul himself was going. Again, he does not attempt to flee. Instead he and Paul resolve to continue on together, on an errand: To find a police officer.

A criminal act leaves usually on the mind a deep trace, in the shape of a consciousness of guilt, and from this consciousness of guilt we may argue to the doing of the deed by the bearer of the trace."

Lechmere remained in Paul's company until they'd found a policeman (Jonas Mizen). They informed him that a woman was lying in Buck's Row. They parted company and continued on to work.


Again....

"Flight from justice, and its analogous conduct, have always been deemed indication of a consciousness of guilt. The wicked flee, even when no man pursueth; and the righteous are as bold as a lion."

Seventy-two hours after he found Nichols' body, the heretofore unknown, unnamed, unidentified Mr. Lechmere appeared, uncompelled and voluntarily at the inquest into her death.

Mr. Lechmere's "flight from justice" has him waiting for a man approaching in the distance, asking him to come and see a woman lying on the pavement, going with that man in search of police officer to inform, and appearing voluntarily to testify at her inquest. His "flight" from justice has him submitting himself to its prosects no less than three times.
I have no actual feeling regarding the Lechmere theory being proposed of him being the Ripper, but I feel that I should say this. While "flight" is still a valid reason to suspect a person involved in a criminal investigation, it is not true totally that innocence is proven by somebody who stays at or near or returns to the scene shortly afterwards.

In 1845 a man named James De La Rue was murdered near the "Swiss Cottage" in Hempstead Heath in London, and after some people (who heard his screams when attacked) came to the site of the murder a policeman showed up. The crowd grew, and one young man approached and talked to the policeman - somewhat too matter of factly - about the murder, even feeling the dead man's wrist for a pulse. The young man was later identified as one Thomas Hocker, and he was the killer.

Wigmore is still a highly regarded sourcebook in legal circles on evidence.

Jeff
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-19-2017, 07:27 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 937
Default

I'm bumping this post. I made it nearly two years ago, but we seem to have come full circle, again. So, it may be useful. In re-reading what I wrote here, I recalled that Fisherman has used Lechmere's actions in Buck's Row, Bakers Row, what he said at the inquest, as indications that Lechmere was a psychopath (currently discussed on a recent thread). Of course, Lechmere's behavior can only be viewed as strange or "psychopathic" if we have reason to believe he killed Nichols. If one DOES NOT believe he killed Nichols - and there is no indication that he killed ANYONE in his lifetime - then he acted, quite simply, as a man who discovered the body of a woman while walking to work.
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 01:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.